Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Embassies (Closures)

Mr. Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many embassies are scheduled for closure in 1976; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): Our embassies in Nicaragua and the Malagasy Republic will be closed during the first three months of this year. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for further closures of embassies or high commissions.

Mr. Banks: Will the Minister undertake to have further consultations with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the defence implications of closing in particular the embassy in the Malagasy Republic without appointing a career consul in place of the ambassador? Secondly, will he now suspend any further closures of embassies pending the CPRS review and instigate economies within the present structure of the Foreign Service?

Mr. Ennals: As I have said, there are no immediate proposals for closures and, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the matter will be considered in the CPRS review. Concerning Tananarive, the defence aspect is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that apart from the fact

that our High Commissioner in Dar-es-Salaam will be presenting his letters as non-resident Ambassador to the Malagasy Republic and the fact that we are appointing an honorary consul, we are retaining the services of a senior member of the locally engaged staff, and I think that this will be helpful in relation to business interests.

Embassies and Missions (Entertainment)

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will direct all British embassies and missions abroad to reduce the total cost of entertainment offered by them in the coming year by 50 per cent.

Mr. Ennals: No. I have already announced that there will be a 10 per cent. cut next financial year. To go further than that at this stage would be to anticipate the conclusions of the review of overseas representation already announced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Madden: Does not the Minister agree, however, that calls for economic stringency at home conflict with the steady increase in numbers and costs of our staffs abroad, increased expenditure on rentals and maintenance of their embassies and the extraordinary expenditure of over £7 million in the last five years on entertainment? Does he not agree that action is urgently necessary in this area if the general public are not to be left convinced that diplomacy consists of nothing other than endless cocktail parties and banquets? Will he take interim action, before the major review, to cut expenditure on entertainment abroad?

Mr. Ennals: It is important that the House and the public should recognise that there has not been an increase in numbers in the Diplomatic Service. Over the past 10 years there has been a steady reduction in the numbers involved in spite of the fact that demands have increased, particularly in the promotion of our commercial interests overseas—and there could hardly be a higher priority. As regards entertainment, the House knows that I announced very recently that there would be a 10 per cent. cut in expenditure.
There has been a great deal of sniping at diplomatic representation overseas. The purpose of entertainment allowances is not to keep our staff happy but to promote British interests overseas. Our exporters know just how much this matters to them and to British industry at home. The Diplomatic Service is under fire from some quarters, but I believe that its performance is second to none.

Sir Anthony Royle: Does the Minister recognise that we on the Opposition side of the House welcome the way in which he has resisted the constant sniping by members of the Labour Party at the Diplomatic Service? It is quite clear to many of us that although costs have risen considerably in Whitehall and overseas, the Diplomatic Service has managed to maintain a considerable service overseas for us. The British Diplomatic Service spends only ·32 per cent. of Government expenditure compared with the 1·3 per cent. which the French service spends.

Mr. Ennals: I am bound to say that most of the criticism and snipings have come from the Opposition side of the House. I should think that about 10 times as many questions on this subject have come from Conservative Members as have come from my hon. Friends.

Terrorist Operations (Financial Support)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will confirm that it is the Government's policy not to give financial support to organisations indulging in terrorist operations, such as SWAPO, the Pan African Congress, ZANU and the South African ANC.

Mr. Ennals: There has been no change in the Government's policy towards aid to liberation movements. We are prepared in appropriate cases to give political and humanitarian support for peaceful purposes. Of the groups named, SWAPO receives support, specifically for scholarships and other educational purposes.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister use this opportunity to repudiate the decision of an official Labour Party committee under

the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), which has decided to give large sums of money to terrorist organisations without any qualification as to how that money is to be spent? Will he realise that unless he repudiates this decision, it will make a mockery of the Prime Minister's call to American citizens not to give support to the IRA and its terrorist operations in this country?

Mr. Ennals: I have no responsibility for the Southern Africa Solidarity Fund, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) is chairman. She wrote a helpful letter of explanation which has been published in The Times today. The Labour Party has a long and honourable tradition of support for liberation movements in southern Africa, but certainly they do not depend on funds either from the Labour Party itself or, less still, from the Government.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend draw a distinction between those countries in southern Africa in which populations are held down by force of arms and denied any kind of democratic rights and those organisations rightly described as liberation movements? Does he agree that it is nonsense to refuse assistance to liberation movements and, when they turn elsewhere for help, then to brand them as Communist puppets, turn against them and support some other movement?

Mr. Ennals: I draw a sharp distinction Many years ago I helped to set up the Spanish Democrats Defence Committee. That committee gave comfort and support to people who would play a full role in the democratic life of Spain. I draw a sharp distinction, but it is not right that we should give support in any military sense. We carefully ensure that none of the aid that Britain gives can possibly be used for weapons of violence.

Mr. Maudling: If it is not Government money but Labour Party money, what is the position under the exchange control regulations of contributions made to overseas organisations which are not in any sense charitable?

Mr. Ennals: That is a question that must be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not a question for me.

China

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he intends to raise for discussion during his forthcoming visit to the People's Republic of China.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I hope to have wide-ranging discussions. The agenda for such talks is subject to agreement by both sides and with a view to strengthening the existing ties between our two Governments.

Mr. Adley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and wish him well on his visit. Will he comment on the remarks of Mr. Schlesinger in London that China is now NATO's best ally? At the end of the talks, will he try to frame a joint declaration with the Chinese Government condemning the military intervention of the Soviet Union in Angola?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that it will be helpful as part of my visit to China perhaps to inflame a dispute between the world's largest country and the world's most populous country. It is in our interests to have good relations with both countries.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend be touching on the status and future of Hong Kong in his conversations?

Mr. Callaghan: I doubt it, but if the Chinese wish to raise anything about that matter I shall listen carefully to what they have to say.

Chile

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent events concerning the treatment of British citizens in Chile, he will now impound the two submarines which were intended for Chile and ensure their retention in the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Callaghan: The Government are keeping the future of the submarines under review.

Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend take into account whilst reviewing this subject that torture and crimes by the Chilean junta continue and that to allow

the submarines to leave for Chilean shores is almost tantamount to supporting its activities?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the last part of my hon. Friend's question follows from the first. There is strong feeling about the actions of the Chilean Government, which I wholly share. However, when considering these matters we must realise that a different category is involved when we are talking about long-standing and binding contracts negotiated many years ago. We shall keep all these matters under review.

Mr. Kinnock: Would I be right in being encouraged by my right hon. Friend's answer that the matter of the submarines is under review? Will he confirm or deny that an export licence has been granted for the submarines? Does he accept that if there is change of government in a democratic society, different conditions may be imposed on a contract drawn with an earlier government in a particular historical era? Does he agree that we should view the submarines more in that light than in the harsher commercial light of selling them to a country that cannot afford to pay for them?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know about the export licence. I am not sure whose responsibility it is to issue it, but I shall look into that. The question of commercial responsibility is a matter that turns more on the Law Officers' view of the situation. Her Majesty's Government would need to take note if Chile were to fall into defeault with its payments.

Maintenance Payments (Overseas Husbands)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any poposals for facilitating the collection of maintenance payments where the husband, although a British subject, is resident abroad in a country with which Great Britain has no special arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations. The United Kingdom proposes


to ratify the Convention soon. Discussions are taking place with the Government of the United States of America to establish with a number of states reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of maintenance orders.

Mr. Madel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is quite a problem for some people? Is he having discussions with British firms with overseas subsidiaries? When does he expect the arrangements with the United States to be complete?

Mr. Rowlands: We hope to promote these arrangements as speedily as possible with states within the United States. We have tried to make arrangements with Governments. We have already achieved such arrangements with most Commonwealth countries, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa and 35 other countries. Under the Hague Convention, the EEC and other European countries will be covered by the arrangements.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even where arrangements exist with countries such as Belgium and other States in the EEC, it is extremely difficult to get satisfactory arrangements for women who have been deserted by their husbands and whose maintenance payments are not being made? Will the hon. Gentleman do everything he can to take action in such cases and to improve the present unsatisfactory situation?

Mr. Rowlands: We shall always try to help in individual cases of hardship which are brought to our attention. The enforcement of these orders tends to be dealt with through the courts.

Helsinki Agreement

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government have taken as a result of the signing of the Final Act in Helsinki on 1st August 1975.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to implement the Helsinki Agreement of August 1975.

Mr. James Callaghan: The Government are in active consultation with other

European countries about implementing the promises of the Final Act. We have taken up with the Soviet Union the question of working conditions for journalists, and we have good prospects for success. On the multilateral plane, we have been active in the notification of military manœuvres.

Mr. Lamond: That is a very good answer. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is co-operation between his Department and the Home Office about visas being issued to those who wish to come to this country to implement the agreement at Helsinki by discussing, for instance, world-wide disarmament and other matters that will be discussed at the York forum in March of this year?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Our visa procedures are under constant review and individual visa applications are considered on their merits. We shall welcome those who come to forward the policy of détente, but not those who come for different purposes while appearing to sail under the same flag.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that since the Helsinki Agreement there has been a considerable effort in the Russian and satellite Press calling for increased ideological orthodoxy and vigilance in order not to hoodwink the unfortunate citizens of those countries into believing that liberty and détente are breaking in, unlike the unfortunate understanding of the Secretary of State for Defence?

Mr. Callaghan: What is true is that the process of détente is not a benefit conferred by the West upon the Soviet Union but a recognition of the mutual destructive powers of the two world super-Powers. It is not a benefit but it is something of value to both sides. Détente between States does not lead to an armistice in the war of ideas. That war is being continually prosecuted. It is my belief that those of us who are democratic Socialists have more to offer than anyone else in answer to that challenge.

Mr. Luard: Did not the Soviet Union at the Helsinki Agreement secure to a large extent its side of the bargain—namely, some kind of ratification of the status quo in Europe? In return for


that ratification was it not felt that there would be greater freedom of movement and information between East and West Europe? Is it not time that we obtained more of our side of the bargain? Will my right hon. Friend consider calling regular meetings before the one that is scheduled next year so that public opinion in Europe may be mobilised on this issue? There is evidence that the Soviet authorities are to some extent sensitive to world-wide public opinion on matters of this kind.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree with my hon. Friend and disagree with the Leader of the Opposition when she says that the Soviet authorities are not responsive to public opinion. That is not my experience. I must say to my hon. Friend that we cannot expect dramatic changes overnight, and especially regarding those matters covered by Basket III. The Final Act was the beginning and not the end of the process.
The present position is that the Soviet authorities have agreed to our proposals for the introduction of a multiple exit/ re-entry visa régime. We granted such a visa to a Soviet correspondent in London. We have asked the Soviet Embassy to send in the passports of all resident Russian correspondents for similar amendments to be made to their visas. The Soviet authorities have now issued a number of multiple entry visas to British journalists in Moscow. This is a net gain. I hope that it will continue to be pursued, but I do not expect to change the world overnight.

Mr. Maudling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the information in his possession about the measures taken by the Soviet co-signatories to the Final Act in Helsinki?

Mr. Callaghan: The Soviet co-signatories? The right hon. Gentleman will have to put down a Question, as I am not sure I fully understand it.

Mr. Maudling: What have the Russians done?

Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. Gentleman had first asked "What have the Russians done?", it would have dawned on my simple mind.
In addition to what I have said about the journalists, which is a beginning—we should not pooh-pooh it; it would

have been impossible 10 years ago—the Russians have decided to notify us of military manoeuvres in Europe, in accordance with the Agreement. I do not think that they notified us of anything in Angola, but perhaps that is not within the principles of the Agreement. Certainly we should not write off this policy. If we do, there can be nothing but a return to tension and conflict. In the present state of the world and with so many unsolved problems, that would be a policy of despair. Therefore, we must work to make it succeed whilst keeping our eyes open all the time for the consequences.

Mr. Raymond Legge

Mr. Tinn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to assist Mr. Raymond Legge, detained by the Saudi Arabian authorities; and what progress has been made.

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Legge completed a prison sentence and is detained pending deportation. His case awaits review by the Ministry of Justice. We have asked the Saudi Arabian Government for a speedy decision and will continue to press for this. We remain in close touch with Aramco, his former employers, who are responsible for his welfare meanwhile.

Mr. Tinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is totally unacceptable that a British subject should be detained months after the expiry of his quite proper sentence for an offence against the Saudi anti-alcohol laws? Is he satisfied with the conduct of Aramco, his employers at the time? Will he reassure Mrs. Legge, who has been anxious over all these months of uncertainty, that her husband will be returned speedily to her? Could he go a little further than saying that all efforts are being made? Mrs. Legge has been under stress all this time. Her husband should have been home long ago. I am grateful for what the Foreign Office has done. However, will my right hon. Friend go a little further than he has today?

Mr. Ennals: I assure my hon. Friend that we are following this case very carefully and have expressed anxiety about it. Mr. Legge has not been in prison or detention for the whole of the original


sentence imposed upon him. He was released a substantial period before he had completed his prison sentence. I have no dissatisfaction to express about his previous employer, Aramco.
I well understand the concern of Mrs. Legge. Our consul was in touch with and saw Mr. Legge on 13th January. His health does not appear to be at risk. We are hoping that a favourable decision will be taken.

Mr. Rifkind: Regarding British subjects detained overseas, is the Minister aware of the call by over 150 hon. Members on both sides of the House for the release from detention of Mr. Garfield Todd, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia? Will he inform the House what new representation the Government will make to the Rhodesian authorities to ensure that Mr. Todd may make his contribution to the negotiations presently taking place in Rhodesia?

Mr. Ennals: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I have great sympathy with that motion, which has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Only two days ago I saw Mr. Garfield Todd's daughter and son-in-law and assured them that we would do everything we could to ensure the release of Mr. Garfield Todd, who, quite wrongly, has been in detention for four years without any conceivable justification. It is a deplorable situation.

Angola

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the recent OAU Summit, he will now propose a resolution in the Security Council of the United Nations calling upon all foreign Powers to withdraw their troops from Angola.

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider the presence of foreign forces in Angola.

Mr. James Callaghan: In the light of inquiries I have made I am not convinced that it would be helpful for us to

raise this matter in the Council at the present time, but I shall continue to keep the matter under review.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Does the Secretary of State accept that Russia is interested not in solving tribal disputes in Africa but in naval bases, oil, and the spread of Communism—by the use of force, if necessary? Does he appreciate that had we tabled such a resolution in the Security Council, the USSR would have been forced to use the veto and exposed as the imperialist Power she is?

Mr. Callaghan: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Russia might have been forced to use the veto. But the use of the veto is not a very good way of solving problems. I am more concerned to see a Government of reconciliation set up in Angola in which the MPLA recognises and takes in the other factions there than to score a debating triumph in the Security Council.

Mr. Luard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely wrong that the political future of this important country should largely depend on the relative military power of two external nations which, in the eyes of many countries, are violating international law by the presence of their military support? Would there not be an added advantage if the maximum possible publicity were given to the situation as that would perhaps help to bring about the compromise of a coalition Government, to which my right hon. Friend has referred?

Mr. Callaghan: It is undesirable, as my hon. Friend says. Her Majesty's Government, both privately and publicly, have consistently represented to all those concerned that the best contribution to peace would be to withdraw all external armed forces from that territory, and we shall continue to do so. We do not need more publicity for that purpose. It is well known. What is needed is the patient discussion and negotiation which is going on behind the scenes at present and, alas, must continue to do so. I should love to score a public diplomatic triumph. It would be a bit of a change. However, on the whole, I do the best service I know for this country by pursuing these matters in a way which I think will achieve the best success.

Mr. Churchill: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being alone with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in earning an honourable mention in Soviet dispatches. In view of his reference to Angola in reply to an whether he regards the intervention of the Soviet Union and her satellites—in particular, Cuban satellites—in events in Angola as compatible with the spirit of détente?

Mr. Callaghan: It would be churlish of me to dissociate myself even from the thought of being alone with the Leader of the Opposition. Soviet policy is complex and many-sided. I doubt whether the simplistic approach adopted by the Leader of the Opposition has contributed to public understanding of the problems of this super-Power.

Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend deplore the recruitment of mercenaries in this country to be sent to Angola? I understand that some have gone today. Will he take some action to stop this practice?

Mr. Callaghan: I certainly deplore the recruitment of mercenaries—it is highly undesirable in present circumstances—just as I deplore the entry of the Cubans upon the scene, as I have made clear privately to the Cuban authorities. We must take a consistent attitude on this matter. It is still possible to retrieve some of the basic mistakes that have been made in Angola. We must continue to work to do so.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Angola.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British policy towards Angola.

Mr. James Callaghan: Her Majesty's Government are opposed to any external intervention in Angola and call for a ceasefire and a political settlement which would enable the Angolan people to determine their own future freely.

Mr. Wall: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the main aims of the Soviet Union are to detach the whole of Southern Africa from Western influence and that this is the reason behind its operations in Angola? Is he aware that it is assisted in these designs by certain actions by the Labour Government and the Labour Party, such as the denunciation of the Simonstown Agreement and the giving of money to groups whose main weapon is terrorism?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the Simonstown Agreement has very much to do with this matter, even though the hon. Gentleman tries to drag it in by its tail. The Soviet Union is intent on strengthening its position in the continent of Africa ad elsewhere when the opportunity serves. The question is what the right response is and how that response should be made. That is why I object to the simplicity of some statements on this subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has great experience of Africa and its peoples, will not under-estimate the force of national or tribal identities, which may be stronger than any alien ideology.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend in full accord with the Labour Party's decision to support the MPLA?

Mr. Callaghan: The Labour Party has consistently entertained friendly relations with the MPLA—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question in my own way. The MPLA is an important element in any settlement in Angola, but it is not an exclusive element in that country. Although the Labour Party has had connections with the MPLA, the Government should not ignore the interests of other peoples in that territory.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not now clear that the key to the protection of the interests of the non-Communist world in the situation of Angola and the consequences that may flow from it lies not in Angola itself but in the leverage of one kind and another that can be exerted by the Western world on the Soviet Union? Is the Foreign Secretary consulting his EEC colleagues and the United States about the use of leverage?

Mr. Callaghan: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is "Yes, both". I promoted a joint statement by the EEC—a statement which I hoped would have been made publicly before the OAU meeting, but I was unsuccessful. However, representations have been made. I have discussed this subject with the United States. There is a great deal in the hon. Gentleman's comments about leverage, but we must not ignore the feelings of the African people. I believe that in the long run that factor will be decisive.

Portugal (British Property)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the freezing and expropriation of British property in Portugal.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 26th November 1975. Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to achieving an early and satisfactory outcome to all the cases involving British property owners. We have continued to raise this matter with the Portuguese Government at the highest level.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I welcome certain developments in Portugal towards a freer society and more respect for the rule of law. However, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any progress in this matter?

Mr. Hattersley: There has been a good deal of progress by the Portuguese Government. They have made clear that, in a changing and difficult situation their power to implement the sort of régime they want to see in the agricultural industry is limited. I have no doubt that the Portuguese Government will do their best, and we shall continue to press them to do so.

CBI

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his meeting with the CBI on 13th January.

Mr. James Callaghan: I had a discussion about recent international developments with the President and senior officials of the Confederation of British Industry when they called on me on 13th January. This was the second such meeting with them and was in conformity with the practice I have introduced of inviting the International Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the CBI to discuss international matters with me at intervals.

Mr. Canavan: Using his vast experience as Foreign Secretary, will my right hon. Friend point out to the CBI the damage done in many instances by overseas investment by multi-national companies which use those investments simply to exploit cheap sources of foreign labour? Did the recent reports that the Chairman of Vickers might use nationalisation compensation to increase this type of overseas investment not confirm that it is about time we took a much tougher line with these unpatriotic speculators to stop them shifting money out of the country?

Mr. Callaghan: I did not discuss the matter with the CBI at the time, but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The multi-nationals are a new phenomenon to which Governments have to pay increasing attention. The European Community is paying attention to this matter and I know from my contacts with the TUC that it is also dealing with the subject. It is clear that the boundaries of activities by multi nationals can conflict with member States. When that happens, those activities must be restricted.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that interference by Governments of all parties since the war in decisions by companies to invest where they think most profitable has in many cases resulted in a loss of jobs?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I would not agree with that statement. It reflects a simplistic view of the changing face in international affairs of conglomerates and multi-nationals. The longer I stay in this lob, the more I realise that trade is becoming more and more influenced by Governments throughout the world. I sometimes wonder whether we in this country have a system sufficient to meet


what we encounter overseas. I have particular thoughts in that direction. I am not being ideological about this matter. It is a practical question of how we deal with overseas trade. This may need new instruments in this country.

CIA

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Dr. Kissinger in regard to CIA activity in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. James Callaghan: The United States Secretary of State and I have had a conversation on the matter.

Mr. Atkinson: Although we all accept the legitimacy of military intelligence throughout the world and recognise that it is indulged in by the CIA in this country and elsewhere, does the Minister recollect that in the recent evidence given by the CIA to a Congressional committee of inquiry the CIA claimed a second interest—namely, political intervention in the hope of influencing political developments in other countries? Did not the CIA claim to be involved not only in military intelligence but in political subversion? Does the Minister agree that that is a legitimate rôle for the CIA to play?

Mr. Callaghan: It is not for me to say what is a legitimate rôle for the CIA to play in the United States. What it does in this country would be a matter for Her Majesty's Government. But so far I have no evidence to lead me to raise the matter with the United States authorities.

Mr. Goodhew: Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of discussing with the Soviet ambassador KGB activities in the United Kingdom because, despite those activities, the ambassador appears to display ignorance about free speech in a democracy?

Mr. Callaghan: I have not thought of doing so, but I welcome the fact that the Soviet ambassador has embarked on public controversy in this country. I hope that it means that our ambassador in Moscow will have the same facilities.

European Youth Foundation

Mrs. Chalker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs what progress is being made with the development of the European Youth Foundation.

Mr. Ennals: The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided in 1975 that the Foundation, set up in 1972 for a trial period, should continue on a permanent basis.
We are glad that the number of international activities financially supported by it and organised by the younger generation grows yearly. We are considering ways in which we can continue to co-operate with the Foundation.

Mrs. Chalker: Why were we told on 20th November, following the announcement about the EYF continuing on a permanent basis, that the grant had been stopped while at the same time we had agreed to double the size of the European Youth Centre? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be inconsistent to double the size of the Centre but have no funds to send British youth to further foreign exchange in Europe in this way?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Lady will have noticed the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 17th December that we were considering ways in which we could continue to participate in the European Youth Foundation and provide some measure of financial support. That was made after the statement to which she referred and I have nothing to add to what he said.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Tindemans Report

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Tindemans Report.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to produce their preliminary response to the Report on European Union by Mr. Tindemans, the Prime Minister of Belgium, submitted recently to the European Council.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to discuss with


his EEC colleagues the report prepared by Mr. Tindemans on the future of the Community.

Mr. James Callaghan: I welcome the realistic nature of Mr. Tindemans' broad approach of building on the Community as it now exists. The Report will be a useful stimulus to discussion about the development of the Community in the next few years.
I expect it to be discussed at the next meeting of the European Council at the beginning of April.

Mr. Marten: As the Foreign Secretary has already told us that the final decision on direct elections to the European Parliament, which are mentioned in the Tindemans Report, will rest with this Parliament, can he answer the question which the Prime Minister evaded at Question Time yesterday and tell us precisely what powers that Parliament will have? We now have the cart before the horse. We must know what these powers will be before we can reasonably discuss whether it is right to have direct elections. Will the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement about this subject and define the powers in the Green Paper—and I hope that it will be green and not white—that is to be published?

Mr. Callaghan: I thought that the Prime Minister answered the question completely yesterday, but I shall do my best to restate the position. The basis of the direct elections will be the existing powers of the European Assembly, no more and no less. If these powers are to be changed, it will be only with the consent of the member States. I prefer not to include a summary of the powers in the green White Paper or white Green Paper, because I want it to focus on issues of mechanics and the decisions that will need to be taken in relation to the elections and not to be side-tracked on to these other matters.

Mr. Hoyle: The British people have never been consulted about direct elections. They were certainly not consulted during the referendum. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that another referendum must be held before we have direct elections?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not agree with my hon. Friend and I do not think that the British people would welcome another referendum on this limited aspect of the issue. There is no doubt that the matter was put to the British people in the referendum. I can only repeat what the Prime Minister said. If those who were against continued membership of the EEC did not raise this matter in the referendum campaign, they were neglecting their duty and hon. Members who neglected to do their duty at that time should not now complain to me.

Mr. Dykes: What specific steps do the Government propose to take in the foreseeable future to avoid the terrifying prospect for this country, to which Mr. Tindemans alluded indirectly, that we shall be not only members of the lower tier of the Community in economic terms, but its poorest country on a per capita basis?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not accept the hon. Member's hypothesis. Whether there is to be a two-tier system will have to be discussed at the European Council and will require the consent of all member States before being introduced. I expressed my personal views in a speech in Hamburg last week and I think the debate should go on. I have to speak with some caution, because the Cabinet have not yet considered the matter, but I do not believe that a two-tier system would be to the benefit of the Community or of this country.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tindemans Report covers a much wider range of topics than just direct elections? Will he consult the Leader of the House about having an early debate on the Report?

Mr. Callaghan: I agree with my hon. Friend that direct elections play a very small part in the Report, which covers a wide area. I shall convey my hon. Friend's request to the Lord President. The only undertaking I can give today—because I have already consulted my right hon. Friend on this subject—is that we shall have a debate on direct elections once the White Paper has been published and consultations are taking place.

Mr. Hurd: Do not recent events in Portugal, Angola and Lebanon under-


score one of Mr. Tindemans' main points—that we shall not be able to defend British and European interests effectively unless we have a much more closely concerted foreign policy? Could not Britain play a great part in bringing this about, and what will the Foreign Secretary do to help?

Mr. Callaghan: We are playing a vigorous part in this matter. This is one area in which I feel very much at ease in moving. British experience, history and background enable us to take a lead in such matters. We have done so and shall continue to do so. We tried to do so over Angola, though we did not meet with complete success. There will always be failures as well as successes.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at this morning's meeting of the Labour Party National Executive Committee there was a unanimous decision that before the Government took a final decision on direct elections they should make sure that the Labour Party was fully consulted at a conference and had had an opportunity to consider the implications of such elections for this country?

Mr. Callaghan: It will be for the party to decide whether it wants to call a conference on the matter. As far as the Government are concerned, I have already begun consultations with the leaders of all parliamentary parties and have written to them on the subject. At a later stage, it will be for the Home Secretary to follow the normal course in these matters and to call together party organisations, such as Transport House and Conservative Central Office, to work out detailed proposals.

Mr. David Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we are to have a White or a Green Paper, or is there no longer any difference between the two? Can he say why so many hon. Members are anxious that the British people be consulted about everything to do with Europe except who represents them there?

Mr. Callaghan: I am a little in the dark about the colour of the proposed Paper myself. As I plan it at the moment, the first part will contain decisions which have to be reached at Community level, such as the total number of members of the Assembly and their distribution among member States. That part of the

Paper would be white. But there would also be a number of questions which I hope to identify in the second part of the Paper dealing with the electoral arrangements here. This part would be raising questions, such as dual mandate, and not answering them. I am afraid that it will be a bit of a hybrid beast.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the Government give their support to Mr. Tindemans' recommendation that the Council should instruct the institutions to initiate action to evolve procedures for the protection of fundamental political, economic and social rights within the Community?

Mr. Callaghan: I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. This matter will certainly be considered before we go to the European Summit.

Mr. Spearing: One of the conclusions of this Report, which my right hon. Friend admits is important yet which we are not to debate, is that member States should submit a greater part of their external relations and problems to a common policy. Does my right hon. Friend go as far as that and, if not, will he tell Mr. Tindemans so at their next meeting?

Mr. Callaghan: I did not say that we would not have a debate. I am not in a position to say whether a debate will take place, because I have not yet consulted my right hon. Friend the Lord President. My experience leaves me in no doubt that the more European countries can work together on a common foreign policy, the stronger will be our influence in the world. As I wish to see British influence strengthened, I shall do my best to ensure that the Community itself works in that way.

Mr. Amery: The Foreign Secretary referred to his initiatives in the EEC over Angola. Does he agree that to call for a coalition Government and for the withdrawal of all foreign forces is like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted? Will he get in touch with our EEC partners and our NATO allies to see what steps we can take to prevent the Sovietisation of Angola and the disastrous consequences which would follow for southern and central Africa?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is talking of a policy enunciated


when the balance of forces in Angola was different from what it is today, and he is seeking to apply that policy to the current situation. At the time the call made a lot of sense. It it had been accepted then, it would have been much to the benefit of the people of Angola. I said that I thought that a Government of national reconciliation was now required. In such a Government the MPLA would play a prominent, maybe a leading part. If we are looking for a solution to this problem and if there is to be peace in Angola, the other very substantial element of the people in that country must be involved. I do not believe that in the short run external influence will be extruded from Angola. However, knowing the African personality, I believe that in the long run it will be.

Foreign Ministers (Meeting)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC Foreign Ministers.

Mr. James Callaghan: I shall see the Federal German Foreign Minister on 7th February on the occasion of the visit to this country of the Federal German Chancellor. I expect to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels on 9th and 10th February.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend meets these various people in various missions, will he explain to them that even after the referendum he was not the most fervent supporter of the the idea of direct elections? Will he also say that if the Labour Party conference comes out against direct elections, by 1978 or whatever the date may be, unlike the last occasion with the referendum he will accept the decision of conference? If as Foreign Secretary he cannot accept decisions of the Government and of the National Executive Committee, why continue to serve both?

Mr. Callaghan: I know that my hon. Friend would like to take my place on the NEC. However, I think that he will have some competition before he achieves that. As for the attitude towards direct elections, I think that my colleagues in Europe know the position exactly. I do not know whether there are controversies between the Labour Party conference and

the Government. We have not yet had a conference, have we?

Mr. Maudling: Does the Foreign Secretary consider that this country is committed in principle to direct elections, whatever any Labour conference may say?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Commissioner Lardinois said in answer to me in the European Parliament that there was to be no re-negotiation of the common fisheries policy. Nevertheless, we hear constantly in this House, and even in the far north of Scotland, from one of the Scottish Office Ministers that there is to be renegotiation. Which is correct?

Mr. Callaghan: That does not seem to arise out of the Question, but I can never resist the blandishments of the hon. Lady and I shall do my best to answer. The 200-mile limit which the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference might decide to introduce this year would clearly add a great deal of impetus to the need to re-negotiate the common fisheries policy for the EEC. These events are to some extent inter-dependent and an official decision cannot be taken on the second until we have seen the result of the United Nations conference.

Mr. McNamara: In the re-negotiation of the common fisheries policy will my right hon. Friend go for a 100-mile exclusive economic zone around these islands in order to maintain the employment of our fishermen and of the many thousands of people in ancillary industries who are at present suffering great distress in their living standards and employment prospects?

Mrs. Ewing: Ask Commissioner Lardinois.

Mr. Callaghan: We seem to be getting even further from the Question, but the broad answer is that in any negotiation of the common fisheries policy the special position of Britain, with its long coastline, will have to be properly safeguarded.

Mr. Luce: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Angola is a test case of the Community's ability to act together in matters of common concern in foreign relations? Since the right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was desperately


longing for diplomatic success, will he take the lead in persuading the Community at least to condemn all foreign aggression in Angola, and particularly the Russians for preaching détente at Helsinki but practising the opposite in Angola?

Mr. Callaghan: I have answered many questions on Angola. I do not think that I can add much this afternoon, except to say that the hon. Gentleman's reference to getting a concerted policy only goes to illustrate a point I have made so often. There are nine individual member States every one of which can prevent a statement of common policy. I have never been able to get that fact across to some of the anti-Marketeers, but it happens to be the case. On this issue I was unable to get the agreement of all nine to a public statement.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there might be one issue on which he could get agreement among all the States? When he meets the Federal German Chancellor and the other Ministers, will he convey the great appreciation in this country for the efforts that they have been making on the problem of Cyprus? Will he ask that they should redouble their efforts for the coming months? Many of our hon. Friends believe that an initiative from the EEC could help. While he is about it, will he come and tell the Select Committee how he is getting on?

Mr. Callaghan: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". On the second part, I should not be agreeable to answering questions about my discussions with the former Turkish Prime Minister, which I understand to be the purpose of some of the questions it is intended to put to me.

Mr. Christopher Price: No.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. That is the message that was conveyed to me.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Tindemans Report contains some interesting expressions of opinion about aid to the Third World and about the Community's approach to the Third World? This is an area in which a greater degree of concertation of policy could take place. Will the right hon. Gentleman give his view about British

aid policy in the light of the Tindemans Report?

Mr. Callaghan: This is becoming a catch-all Question and I must ask the hon. Member to put down a specific Question on that point.

Regional Development

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the EEC Commissioner with responsibility for regional development.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend meets Mr. George Thomson regularly in the course of Community business. He most recently did so during his visit to Brussels for the Council of Ministers on 20th January.
He has no firm plans for a further meeting, but he expects to meet Mr. Thomson again soon.

Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman leave the EEC Regional Affairs Commissioner in absolutely no doubt that the Scottish Assembly with powers over trade and industry will retain control over and administration of industrial investment incentives in Scotland, free from EEC diktat? Will he also make clear that a self-governing Scotland will construct its own system of industrial aids and incentives free from EEC interference?

Mr. Hattersley: That is not so much a question as a statement of a number of prejudices most of which will not be fulfilled.

Mr. James Lamond: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that of the assistance to development areas which has already been allocated from the EEC 50 per cent. has been allocated to Scotland? Is this not another example of Scotland's advantageous position and is it not time that the people of Scotland were told very clearly of the advantage which exists through remaining a part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hattersley: I have no doubt as to the truth of the implication of that supplementary question, but my task is not so much to underline the wisdom of the Government's attitude on the relationship between the various parts of the United Kingdom as to emphasise the


other implication of what my hon. Friend says, which is the very substantial benefits that all the United Kingdom gets from membership of the EEC.

Mr. Sproat: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to rebut robustly the parochial, petty and ignorant accusations made by the Scottish National Party? Will he remind the House that this very morning the United Kingdom received funds from the EEC over 20 per cent. of which went to Scotland although Scotland has under 10 per cent. of the population?

Mr. Hattersley: I can rebut the ignorant propositions of the Scottish National Party only when they concern foreign affairs.

ICELAND (FISHERIES DISPUTE)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, the Icelandic Prime Minister, Mr. Hallgrimsson, visited this country from 24th to 27th January. We held a series of meetings in which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Ministers also took part. In addition, talks were held between Mr. Hallgrimsson and my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Legal advisers and conservation experts from both sides also met separately on 25th January to discuss problems which were referred to them.
Various formulae for a possible solution of the dispute were considered. I explained to Mr. Hallgrimsson our recognition of the importance of adequate measures to conserve fish stocks around Icelandic coasts in our interests as well as theirs.
The situation during the talks was complicated by problems which arose on the fishing banks as a result of action taken by Icelandic coastguard vessels. I am most grateful to the British fishing industry for the co-operation which it has shown in reducing the risk of serious clashes.
Mr. Hallgrimsson has now returned to Reykjavik to discuss the situation arising from our talks with his Government col-

leagues. I expect to be in touch with him again shortly. It will not be easy to find a solution to this most delicate problem, and I am sure that the House will not wish to press me at this stage for details of the positions adopted by the two sides. It remains of great importance that nothing further should happen on the fishing banks to heighten tension, and in the last two hours I have found it necessary to re-emphasise this to Mr. Hallgrimsson.
It will be clear from what I have said that Her Majesty's Government have approached this matter in a constructive spirit and have shown and continue to show the greatest restraint. This point has been appreciated by our NATO partners, and I should like to express my gratitude to the NATO Secretary-General for the action which he took to make possible my meeting with the Icelandic Prime Minister.
I shall, of course, keep the House fully informed of any future developments. In the meantime, it is important that the prospects for further discussions should not be endangered by speculation or by ill-judged words or actions, particularly on the fishing grounds.

Mr. Maudling: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. In this delicate stage of the negotiations I entirely agree that it would be wise to reserve any comment. I ask the Prime Minister to accept that the Opposition fervently wish to see a just solution of the problem. Will he undertake to make a further statement to the House as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his forbearance. It is a very difficult problem for all of us and for the Icelandic Government. Some of the ideas we discussed have been taken back for discussion by the Icelandic Government and, however difficult it is for us, we must wait until they have reached a determination on these questions. Meanwhile, I note that the right hon. Gentleman fully supports our actions. I emphasise how vitally important it is that nothing should occur in the fishing grounds or in any other way to exacerbate the situation.

Mr. James Johnson: I accept that Mr. Hallgrimsson has internal difficulties with


a hostile Cabinet, perhaps a hostile Parliament and perhaps a hostile population on the pavements. I congratulate the Government on their handling of this complex and confused situation. Is my right hon. Friend aware that for every 1,250 tons of cod in our quota not caught, between 25 and 30 men become unemployed, five times that number in ancillary occupations become unemployed and one vessel has to be put back into the yard for demolition?
Will my right hon. Friend say what is the interim position of the fleet at sea? The fishermen have caught no fish for 48 hours and, as my right hon. Friend said, they have behaved in an exemplary fashion. May we have an assurance that if they are in difficulties and if—God forbid—the talks do not come to a successful conclusion, the Navy will still be there to defend them?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said and his understanding as a Member of Parliament for a constituency comprising one of our fishing ports. It is true, as he said, that there is great feeling in the Icelandic Cabinet and among the Icelandic people. Cod is a central feature of Iceland's economy. We recognise that, and the essence of negotiation is to help the other chap as well as to stand up for our own national interests. I confirm what my hon. Friend said about the conduct of the trawler fishermen, partcularly those who are in an area of great peril. We had to intervene twice in the middle of a key part of the talks because of action taken. As to the future, we have asked the Icelandic Government to join us in cooling the situation in the inevitable period while we are awaiting their response. We have made clear that, if there are any problems, we reserve all rights in the matter of protecting our fishing vessels during the period while the Icelandic Government are reaching their decision. We have also made clear that, while we passionately hope for an agreement—as I am sure the Icelandic Government do—in default of an agreement the Government reserve their rights fully to protect our fishermen who are about their legal business in fishing in waters which we do not accept as having been closed to us.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that we fully appreciate the delicacy of the situation and welcome his statement about the importance of conserving stocks? Will he say a little more about the instructions which are currently being given to the British fleet and whether he is satisfied that they are sufficiently clear?

The Prime Minister: To reply to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we have expressed to the Icelandic Government our full agreement with them on the need for conservation. That is In the interests not only of the Icelandic fishermen but of ourselves. There is great anxiety on the part of conservation experts that stocks may fall to an impossibly low level. We have been very reasonable in this matter. The scientists on both sides did not reach agreement on what should be the total catch on conservation grounds, but we have shown great flexibility because there is advantage to us as well as to Iceland in ensuring—or even over-ensuring—conservation in the first year or two to make sure that breeding continues and that more stocks will be available.
As to the immediate situation, I again pay tribute to the trawler industry. We had to give the fishermen rather differing instructions and they were very understanding about it. We have made clear that any continued interference—I am extremely worried about reports we have had in the last two or three hours—must be met by our telling the Icelandic Government that we are not prepared to accept a situation contrary to what we have agreed with them in the matter of cooling it. If necessary, we shall have to take action to protect our ships against harassment and interference, as indeed we had to tell the Icelandic Government two days ago. Certain reports in the evening papers, although well meaning, are not accurate. We have not increased the number of frigates in service in those waters. One has come off station and another has gone on. The question is not about the total number available. We have made clear that in the interim period or if—heaven forfend—there is no agreement, we shall not hesitate to protect our fishermen in their legal pursuits.

Mr. Prescott: I accept that it is extremely difficult in this delicate situation to pass comments. I welcome the removal of Royal Naval vessels whose presence inflamed the situation in the early stages. I am glad that realism seems to be coming into the negotiations. Unemployment on Humberside is just a small part of the problem. The real issue is to get a settlement at the Law of the Sea Conference and to call a meeting with Norway and Iceland to consider how to divide the area for exclusive use within the 200 miles.

The Prime Minister: The law of the sea is a matter for the United Nations Conference. We shall not determine our final domestic decision until that conference has reached a situation in which it is possible for us to do so. We have not accepted the unilateral declaration by the Icelandic Government. Indeed, it has been put in baulk by the decisions on the international law front. We are talking about an area of the high seas which has not been accepted internationally as territorial waters.
We must not take a one-sided view of this situation. If our trawlers, fishing legally, are to be harassed by tug boats, thug-boats or whatever they may be, we are entitled to protect them. I have made it clear that we shall do so in the interim period if that is necessary. But if the situation is to be cooled, that will not be done by inflammatory speeches. I have made it clear that we shall protect our trawlers in the interim period. I hope that it will not be necessary to take such action. In the longer term, if there is no agreement we shall continue to give protection.
This country has always insisted on the freedom of the high seas. I do not believe that one or two actions which were taken even while the talks were taking place were consonant with freedom of action, including fishing, on the high seas.

Mr. Clegg: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the reply he has just given to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and on the attitude he has taken today. It will be much appreciated in Fleetwood. The protection by the Royal Navy was very welcome to the port. Equally, at the moment, no one should take any steps which could aggravate the proceedings.

May I add a plea that, whilst the dispute is going on, the Prime Minister should ask his right hon. Friends to look into the renegotiation of the EEC policy, because that is a separate but very important issue?

The Prime Minister: I understand the keen interest of the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) in Fleetwood, Knott End and other areas that he and I know well. I thank him very much for what he has said.
Clearly, the EEC fisheries policy is a matter for consideration in the Community, which inevitably takes time. But we were not backward in explaining to our Icelandic friends in these discussions the importance of Protocol 6 of the Treaty of Accession in relation to Iceland, and they are well aware of its importance and that we are prepared to help them in these matters but only as part of an overriding general agreement, which I hope we shall achieve.

Mr. Watt: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he has not used the herring stocks in Scottish waters as a bartering lever in the present negotiations?

The Prime Minister: All relevant considerations were taken into account both in preparing our attitude and in what we said.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone will welcome his statement on the need to keep cool and not inflame the situation and that no one will disagree on the importance of conservation in this issue? But can he tell us how soon is "shortly"? When does my right hon. Friend hope for a reply from the Icelandic Government to Her Majesty's Government's proposal? Can my right hon. Friend also answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) in relation to employment in areas such as Fleetwood and Humberside, where already far too many fishermen are walking the stones and far too many people in ancillary industries are also unemployed?

The Prime Minister: That last point was very much in our minds in our approach, and we made it clear in our discussions with the Icelandic Government.
On the question of when we may expect a reply from the Icelandic Government, my colleagues and I are very anxious. We would have hoped to negotiate and agree something while the Icelandic Prime Minister and his colleagues were here, but we recognise their problems of reporting back to the Icelandic Cabinet. I hope that we are very near to getting a decision from them. I would rather get the right answer with two or three days' delay, however, than an immediate answer unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government, the House or to hon. Members representing fishing ports. But the matter cannot wait indefinitely, as I am sure the Icelandic Government know. Equally, every day a decision is postponed endangers the situation on the high seas.
It is for that reason that I keep coming back to our insistence that everything should be done on both sides to cool the situation. That means that we have to ask our trawler skippers and crews to show some restraint in the matter. It is no less important that the Icelandic coastguard authorities recognise the importance of getting an agreement and of not harassing our trawlers and escalating the situation even before we know what the Icelandic Government's answer is.

Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[Interruption]—that we hope for a successful compromise which will both be fair to our fishermen and restore our traditional friendship with the people of Iceland? The right hon. Gentleman said that the status quo would remain during these negotiations. Could he be specific on one point, namely, that—[Interruption]—frigates will remain available although outside the 200-mile limit?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but could the hon. Gentleman repeat the last part of his question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members want to conduct conversations, will they please do so outside the Chamber?

Mr. Wall: Is the Prime Minister aware that we all hope for a successful compromise which will both be fair to our fishermen and restore our traditional friendship with the Icelandic people? He said that meanwhile the status quo re-

mains. Can he give a specific assurance on one point, namely, that frigates, while remaining outside the 200-mile limit, will be available if needed?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have already referred to the question of the number of the frigates concerned. They are outside the 200-mile limit. I specifically referred, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did at Question Time, to the situation that if, during the period while we are waiting for a decision from the Icelandic Government, there is harrassment, that is something we cannot accept and then all bets would be off with regard to the positioning of the frigates.
We also made it clear that if there is no agreement we would intend to continue fishing with due regard for the conservation aspect which I have mentioned but that we would not in such a situation suffer our trawlers to be harrassed and therefore we would in that situation have to move the frigates within that area.

EMPLOYMENT DEBATE (AMENDMENTS)

Mr. Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the House if I indicated now my decision as to the selection of amendments in tomorrow's debate. I have looked at these amendments carefully. It appears to me that arguments in respect of all of them would be relevant to the general debate. I intend to select the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.
Representations have been made to me, perfectly properly and courteously, that I should call the amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and a considerable number of other hon. Members. In my last week as Speaker, nothing would be easier or more pleasant for me than to accede to any request such as that. But I am afraid that I must say what I think to be right on what is a procedural matter. It is important that the Chair should try to maintain the procedures of the House.
This is not a judgment on the merits of the question. I fully realise the importance of and deep feelings about


unemployment. But the Select Committee on Procedure, in its Second Report in the Session 1974–75, did advise an experiment about allowing for another vote. It stated:
For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, Your Committee do not recommend that Standing Orders should be amended to make a general and permanent change in the sense suggested by Mr. Steel. However, they consider that the House may find it useful to proceed by way of an experiment, as Mr. Speaker has proposed, confining such an experiment to the proceedings on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech.
I extended that recommendation on my own authority to an amendment after the four-day debate on devolution. I am now asked to extend the innovation to a one-day debate, although on a very important topic. That would go far beyond the Select Committee's Report. It would be a precedent involving a basic change in the procedures of this House. I feel that such a change in Standing Orders should be made only with the authority of the House as a whole.
I am very sorry about this, and I assure the House that no pressures at all have been put upon me to rule as I have. I am disappointed—I understand the feelings of hon. Members—to have to say "No" during my last week, but I must do what I think is right.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the point made at the very end of your ruling but draw attention to one relevant constitutional matter connected with the ruling and the interpretation of the change of rule.
In the years leading up to the change of rule and the advocacy of the experiment, it was pointed out time and again that it is frequently the case that in a matter of major policy—and obviously this applies, as you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, only to matters of major policy—there is an understanding between the Government Front Bench and the official Opposition Front Bench about giving special place in our proceedings to matters of basic policy. But then any segment of opinion in the House—however important, however numerous and however representative of a segment of opinion in the country—is not in a position to make itself heard in the centre of our political life.
That is why the change of rule was advocated, and I draw attention to the fact that the official Opposition have now put on the Order Paper an amendment which specifically seeks to amend not so much the motion put down by Her Majesty's Government as my amendment. From the text, it is apparent that the two points attacked are the major points in my amendment.
I believe that I carry opinion in all parts of the House in suggesting that if a vote is not allowed on my amendment, the House will be prevented from coming to a decision on the disagreement about the economic strategy on which the two Front Benches are united, and which I seek to question.
It is purely on those constitutional grounds that I take the unusual step of urging you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your decision and to come to a different one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has put that point to me already today, and I assure him that I considered it very carefully. It would be very easy for me, in my last week, to say "Yes", but I must do what I think is right. This is a very important procedural point for the House as a whole, and I cannot take it upon myself to depart from what is, I think, the spirit of the rules. I may think that the rules should be altered or I may not, but as things are I cannot do it. I beg the hon. Member to accept that no pressure has been put upon me to rule as I have. I have done it believing it my duty so to rule in preserving the procedure of the House.

Mr. Heffer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept entirely, Mr. Speaker, with respect, the case you put forward, but I recall that there have been occasions, before you became Speaker, when my hon. Friends and I have had amendments called in this House—not under this new procedure but long before it was ever dreamed or thought about. May I therefore, with respect, Mr. Speaker, ask you to reconsider your decision, on the basis not of this precedent but of previous precedents under previous Speakers? One such example that I recall was a debate on Vietnam, and there have been other issues on which amendments put down by Labour Back Benchers have been called.
Many of us in this House, Mr. Speaker, wish to express a positive opinion, and to be able to vote for the action we believe it to be necessary for the Government to take. We are now being edged into a position, much against our will, where we may have to vote in a non-positive way, or in a negative way, when what we want to do is to tell the Government the changes we believe to be essential, without voting entirely against all Government policies on unemployment.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who, were the amendment to be selected, would not be voting for it, I support the points made very reasonably from the Government Benches. I was the person who drafted the proposal from the Select Committee on Procedure. Unfortunately, when the Committee accepted the recommendation, it did so with the very narrow restriction that the experiment should be confined to the proceedings on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. You then extended that experiment, Mr. Speaker, with total acceptance by the House, to the general debate on devolution.

Mr. Gourlay: No.

Mr. Steel: We face the difficulty that an amendment—which I think was tabled first—representing a perfectly clear and specific point of view, and attracting a large number of signatures, is preempted. It could have been open to selection but for the fact that the official Opposition have, quite properly, put down their amendment. This is an intolerable position, and since, Mr. Speaker, you have already extended the advice—it can only be advice—from the Select Committee on Procedure, you are now free, with respect, to consider extending it further.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have mentioned quite rightly, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that the circumstances of the devolution debate were unique. Over 100 Members on the Government side feel that the present level of unemployment is a far more important issue than any of the devolution proposals. There are 11- million good reasons, Mr. Speaker, for urging you to change your mind.

Mr. Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are to exercise democratic principles in this country, they must apply to an important debate such as the one on unemployment. The opposition to the Government proposal must be heard not only from the official Opposition but from the Government side as well. We hope, Mr. Speaker, to be able to put forward constructive proposals.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope, with respect, that you will reconsider your ruling, bearing in mind that Members of Parliament have a duty to scrutinise the work of the Executive. You will no doubt appreciate that Back-Bench Members of the majority party do not have any part in decision making. Important decisions have been made by the Cabinet concerning the economy.
One way of drawing attention to the very strong feelings within the majority party concerning the present state of the economy, and the very high level of unemployment, is by putting down amendments. If these amendments are not called, and no action is taken on them, so that we are denied an opportunity of voting, there may well be a tendency for the Executive to regard them as so much paper, without any effective force or feeling behind them.
As already indicated, 104 Members of the Labour Party have signed the amendment. Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give earnest consideration to reviewing your decision and setting a precedent, otherwise one is bound to ask what level of unemployment must be reached before the House of Commons is prepared to change its procedures. In such circumstances the standing of the House with people outside is bound to be adversely affected.

Mr. Small: When reflecting on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take into consideration the intellectual ferment that takes place here concerning the right to speak. One would like simply to be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, without first having to write one's name on a list or slate.

Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your


attention the fact that, had it not been for the signatories to the amendment in question demanding a debate on unemployment repeatedly during business questions on Thursday after Thursday, such requests would not have been acceded to and that, following the motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) under Standing Order No. 9, the request to grant this debate came about? Therefore, the very basis of the debate springs from those hon. Members who tabled the amendment. For that reason, we ask you to change your mind.

Mr. Speaker: Taking first the remarks by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) about the shortness of speeches and about who is likely to catch my eye, I might say to him that he will have a very strong claim because his speeches are always very brief and because tomorrow's debate is exactly the kind of debate on which I should have liked to operate a time limit had I been given power to do so. But I have not been given it, and I greatly regret that.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), if I had allowed a debate under Standing Order No. 9, I should not have been in my present trouble. I said that I thought that there should be a full day's debate, and it is that which has put me on the horns of this dilemma.
I shall consider the matter carefully again. Speaker Brand closured a debate without any authority to do so. Speaker Gully failed to suspend a sitting when he might have done. In each case, the Standing Orders were altered afterwards.
But my difficulty is that if I select the amendment in question on this occasion, it would be very hard to say why, whenever there was an important debate, the same precedent should not be followed. I do not think that I should tie a millstone of that nature round the neck of my successor.

EDUCATION (MARRIED PERSONS OF COMPULSORY SCHOOL AGE)

4.2 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Education Act 1944 in respect of the definition of "parent" for a married person of compulsory school age.
It was in September 1972 that the school leaving age was raised to 16 years. Since then it has been a legal requirement that all schoolchildren remained at school for up to two terms following their 16th birthdays.
Let me say at once that I fully supported and continue fully to support the raising of the school leaving age to 16 and that nothing relating to the Bill that I now seek to introduce should be interpreted in any way as an attempt to relax that very important and valuable measure to extend educational opportunity for all children.
However, the raising of the school leaving age to 16 has produced one anomaly which my Bill is intended to remedy. It arises because the lower age limit in England and Wales for a person to be lawfully married is also 16 years. The result is that, since 1972, it has been possible for married persons to be of compulsory school age. For instance, a person whose 16th birthday is on 1st September and who is married on that day or very shortly afterwards is legally required to continue attending school until the following Easter. In those circumstances, there must be a very great temptation for married schoolchildren to cease to attend school, especially if they have moved home to a new area and also if they are girls with household duties.
I do not in the slightest condone such truancy, but I can appreciate how it can easily occur. If a 16-year old married schoolchild is absent from school in this way, the law at present requires a prosecution to be brought under Section 36 of the Education Act 1944 by the local education authority against the parent of the schoolchild. Section 114 of the same Act interprets the meaning of
"parent" as including a legal guardian as well as a natural parent but not including a husband or wife.
In a case which arose in my constituency in 1974, a girl aged 16 years had married a young man who was over the age of 18 and had gone to live with him some 15 miles away from her previous home, her previous home having been with her widowed mother. The local education authority was obliged by the current state of the law to take the widow to court. But in no way was it able to take action against the girl's husband.
I submit that the law is out of touch with reality in such circumstances, and the main purpose of my Bill is to transfer the legal responsibility for securing school attendance in the case where a married schoolchild has a spouse who is over 18 years of age from the parent to that spouse.
It is true that there would remain an anomalous situation in cases where both partners to a marriage were less than 18 years of age with one or both of them being of compulsory school age. In circumstances such as that, I cannot at this stage see any alternative to the present assignment of the legal responsibility for securing school attendance to the parent of the child concerned.
There may be other implications of the Bill relating to the assessment of parental financial income with respect to the provision of free school meals, free milk or clothing for married schoolchildren. If a schoolchild is married with a spouse who is over the age of 18, again it appears

to me that it would be realistic to treat the spouse as having taken the place of the parent with regard to any assessment of financial income. I am still considering the legal aspects of that implication of the Bill, but in principle I should welcome the transfer to a spouse over the age of 18 years of all these aspects of the parent's role in relation to a schoolchild's education.
To sum up, it seems to me that the present law concerning the definition of "parent" in respect of a married person of compulsory school age is contrary to common sense, and I seek the leave of the House to attempt to rectify the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. John Horam, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Evan Luard, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Arnold Shaw, Mr. James Tinn, Mr. Michael Ward and Mr. Alec Woodall.

ORDER OF THE DAY

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND

'(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any person—

(a) is or has been concerned (whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere) in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or
(b) is attempting or may attempt to enter Northern Ireland with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,

the Secretary of State may make an order against that person prohibiting him from being in, or entering, Northern Ireland.
(2) In deciding whether to make an order under this section against a person who is ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State shall have regard to the question whether that person's connection with any territory outside Northern Ireland is such as to make it appropriate that such an order should be made.
(3) An order shall not be made under this section against a person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who—

(a) is at the time ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland, and has then been ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland throughout the last 20 years, or
(b) was born in Northern Ireland and has, throughout his life, been ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland, or
(c) is at the time subject to an order under section 4 of this Act.

Paragraph (a) shall be construed in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman himself indicates all the various amendments that he wishes to be considered with the new clause.

Mr. Jenkins: I hope that I can accomplish that fairly complicated task. With the new clause, I believe that there are associated 14 consequential amendments, which are as follows:
Government Amendments Nos. 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, 25, 28, 30, 45, 46, 59, 60, 61 and 62.
It will also be convenient to consider at the same time certain amendments tabled by Opposition Members before I tabled my proposals. They are:
Amendment No. 11, in Clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.
Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 23, at end insert 'or Northern Ireland'.
Amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 27, at end insert:
'or Northern Ireland as the case may be'.
Amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 2, at end insert:
'(4) When an order is made under this section prohibiting a person from being in, or entering Northern Ireland, subsection (2) and (3) of this section shall have effect with the substitution of Northern Ireland for Great Britain'.
There are also amendments to the proposed new clause:

(a) in paragraph (a) to leave out "whether";
(b) in paragraph (a) after "elsewhere", insert "in the British Isles".

I hope I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the Opposition will not wish to press their amendments in the circumstances, because I think that my new clause and the consequential amendments cover fully the point which they had in mind.
The purpose of new Clause 1 and the amendments is to introduce into the Bill the concept known as reciprocity in the making of exclusion orders. I shall explain what is meant by "reciprocity". At present, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies can be excluded from Great Britain only if he or she has been concerned in acts of terrorism or is attempting to enter Great Britain for that purpose. A non-citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies can be excluded from the whole of the United Kingdom. Probably in practice it means the Republic of Ireland, although there could be cases when it might mean elsewhere. However,


at present there is no power to exclude a citizen of the United Kingdom from Northern Ireland if, for example, he went from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to commit acts of terroism or there was reason to suspect that he was doing so. There is no reciprocal power of this sort.
We have discussed this matter throughout the, happily, fairly short history of this emergency prevention of terrorism legislation. I recollect the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) putting the point to me fairly early one morning a year last November. As I recollect it—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will confirm this—I indicated to him then that I had no objection in principle to the matter, but I did not think that it had any practical import and, therefore, at that stage, I did not wish to change the position. Equally, in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that we would consider the matter further. Indeed, I understand that there was a Division. I was told that it was put forward in the spirit of helping us to consider the matter with even greater concentration. I do not know whether that affected our concentration, because I have always regarded this as a rather open point.
The position as I now see it is that I do not believe that this clause is likely to have any practical effect. We know of no example recently in which we should have wished to make an exclusion order of this sort. However, I am quite aware that, should a case arise in which it was right to make such an exclusion order, there could be objections of principle to our not being able to do so. This could arouse a feeling of grievance, lack of equality of treatment or lack of proper respect for the unity of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland. Therefore, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, like me, does not see it as a practical issue but equally sees no objection to it, I think it would be proper in the interests more of logic than of practice to bring forward the new clause. I therefore do so.
There is one other point which I should perhaps mention relating to the consequential amendments. In general the drafting of the new clause follows the wording of Clause 4 of the Bill—that is,

the exclusion clause—apart from the inclusion of a new subsection, (3)(c), which ensures that an order under this clause shall not be made against a person who is already subject to an order under Clause 4. I believe that it would be clearly ludicrous and unacceptable for us to take the view that a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies could be excluded from both Great Britain and Northern Ireland and turned, as it were, into a Flying Dutchman or that we should endeavour to export our own terrorists to a totally different part of the world. I do not believe that that would be reasonable. I think that, whether we be one side of the water or the other, regrettably we have to try to digest these people. Therefore, I think that this is a necessary saving provision. In my view, that is the only consequential amendment which I need explain to the House because the other amendments are essentially technical and drafting.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Opposition fully endorse the saving provision which the Home Secretary mentioned at the end of his speech. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State is in her place, because I recall that towards the end of the proceedings in Committee she undertook to convey the feelings and arguments of members of the Committee to her right hon. Friend and to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She promised that the issue of reciprocity would be re-examined. We are grateful to her for redeeming that pledge, and we are grateful to the Home Secretary for accepting the case which right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative and Unionist Party have made in full accord with right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.
The Home Secretary has the satisfaction of righting a wrong and removing an enormity from the statute book. He knows his Irish history and is aware that it yields many examples of fellow subjects across the Irish Sea being treated unfavourably and as second-class citizens. He mentioned the principle, the practicality and the logic of the matter. We consider that the principle is very important and has a practical application partly because of the effect that there has been on the morale of the brave and battered people of Northern Ireland.
Without the new clause, the people of Northern Ireland would be required to put up with those people whom authority over here was not prepared to put up with, and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies could not be prevented from entering Northern Ireland even though they might be as dangerous to the peace as non-citizens.
Northern Ireland is the main theatre of terrorism. It is easier for terrorists to operate with impunity in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. It could be said that the Belfast Lough had been deemed to be a type of Botany Bay with the difference that those who were in former times transported to Botany Bay were kept under constraint.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, although wisely retaining the power to detain, has brought detention to an end, and perhaps that fact has reinforced the argument upon which the right hon. Gentleman has based his change of mind. It was surely completely inequitable that suspects in Northern Ireland with their origins on this side of the water—for example, the former Londoner John Stevenson alias Sean MacStiofain—could not be excluded from the Province and sent back over here for us to deal with.
Therefore, the official Opposition are completely at one with the Ulster Unionists and other hon. Members in resenting the state of affairs—which the Home Secretary is now putting right—in which Northern Ireland is treated as a dump for unwanted, or perhaps sometimes wanted, men. We are glad that good sense and justice have prevailed.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Home Secretary has fairly recorded that from the very beginning of this legislation it has been the view of my hon. Friends and myself that it should contain such a clause as the one we are discussing. We are very glad and very relieved that it is now to be inserted in the Bill, and certainly I shall not take the opportunity of attempting to belabour the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that it has not been in the legislation previously.
It is, of course, intolerable, except for what one hopes will be a very brief period, that there should be any power to remove persons compulsorily from one

part of the United Kingdom to another or to exclude them and prevent them from moving from one part to another.
However, if there is to be such power there are strong reasons both of practice and of principle why it should be a two-way movement or, to be more accurate, a two-way prevention of movement.
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that on the issue of principle it has in the past 15 months been deeply felt, and certainly fully stated in Northern Ireland, that many people believed that the intention of this legislation was to use Northern Ireland as a dumping ground for the unwanted terrorists in Great Britain. However exaggerated that language may be, it represented real resentment which it is all to the good that we should now be removing.
There are, however, and have accumulated in recent days, practical grounds which certainly reinforce the view of the Home Secretary that it is by no means out of the question that practical use might be made of this power. We have seen cases proved in the courts and leading to conviction of persons belonging to Great Britain for taking steps to send the materials of terrorism to Northern Ireland. It is certainly a very short step from organising such a transfer of the material to actually going or wishing to go to Northern Ireland to participate in its use.
The right hon. Gentleman can therefore feel that he has not only considerations of principle but sound practical grounds to support the clause, which we welcome.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Some hon. Members on this side would have preferred my right hon. Friend to try to remove this anomaly by removing exclusion orders altogether rather than extending them to Northern Ireland. However, when we first read the new clause some hon. Members on this side were a little concerned that my right hon. Friend was perhaps extending the power further in relation to Northern Ireland than was provided for in the original Order. That is why we tabled Amendments (a) and (b), so that it was clear that this provision related to acts of terrorism within the United Kingdom and that it did not refer to acts committed elsewhere in the world.
There is a consensus about what constitutes terrorism in relation to Northern Ireland but not always about what is terrorism in other parts of the world. On many occasions in the past there has been considerable political controversy about whether someone, usually a non-British citizen, should be allowed in. But it is still possible that a British citizen will be involved in another part of the world in an act which some people would call terrorism and others would call freedom fighting. We were therefore concerned that the new clause should be tied specifically to acts relating to Northern Ireland.
Having considered the Bill carefully, it is at least my impression that the new clause will be inserted somewhere in Part II, which relates to exclusion orders, and that the final words of Clause 3(1),
with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland",
will govern the new clause. If that is so, we will accept that our small amendments are completely superfluous. I should like an assurance that the new clause will be governed by that provision.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Bill is closely circumscribed in the sense that it applies to acts of terrorism occurring in connection with Northern Irish affairs. There is no intention that it should apply more widely. I suppose that if a terrorist whose connections were with Great Britain and who went from Great Britain were to commit an act of terrorism in connection with Irish affairs in the Republic and then to retreat to Northern Ireland, that would be covered and it would be reasonable to exclude him if it were right on other grounds. But this would not cover acts of terrorism committed except in the Northern Ireland context.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS ACTS OF TERRORISM

'(1) If any person—

(a) intending that it shall be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of

terrorism to which this section applies, solicits or invites a gift or loan of or receives or accepts, any money or other property from any other person, or
(b) knowing or suspecting that it will or may be so applied or so used, gives or lends, or otherwise makes available, any money or other property to any other person,

he shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding £400, or both, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or both.

(2) A court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may order the forfeiture of any money or other property which, at the time of the offence, he had in his possession or under his control and intended to be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this section applies.
(3) This section and section (information about acts of terrorism) of this Act apply to acts of terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and connected with Northern Irish affairs.'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 32 and 68 to 71.

Mr. Jenkins: The new clause and the consequential amendments create a new offence in respect of fund-raising for purposes related to acts of terrorism in the United Kingdom which are concerned with Northern Irish affairs. I do not think that we had a specific amendment on this matter in Committee. We certainly did not have a Division on it. Underlying part of our discussions, however, was a concern on both sides, which has been shared on both sides of the House in previous debates, that fundraising could conceivably take place for and in support of terrorist activities within this country.
What happens outside this country we cannot control by law, although we might try to control it by other means, such as exhortation and bringing home the effect of what is done. But the fundraising could take place within this country and, because the actual fund-raising was not directly concerned with the IRA


or did not appear so to be, might escape any legal net.
I must make it clear that while we would all, I think, condemn and regard as worse than reprehensible fund-raising, collecting or subscribing to funds to support terrorism, this is not by its nature something which can be dealt with infallibly and completely by a process of law. However, since the Committee stage I have considered whether I could reasonably proceed in any way which, while not giving us an infallible legal process here, would somehow improve the position.
I believe that we can do that. It is being done by this new clause. Subsection (1) makes it an offence for anyone to solicit or invite a gift or loan or to receive or accept any money or other property which he intends shall be used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism occurring anywhere in the United Kingdom and connected with Northern Irish affairs.
It will also be an offence not merely to solicit money but to give, lend or otherwise make available any money or other property if the person so doing knows or suspects that it will be used in connection with such acts. The maximum penalty for the offence will be, on summary conviction, six months' imprisonment or a fine of £400, or both, or, on conviction on indictment, five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.
Subsection (2) enables the court to order the forfeiture of any money or property which was intended to be applied or used in connection with acts of terrorism found at the time of the offence in the possession or under the control of a person convicted of an offence under the clause.
The clause places an onus on people contributing to collections to avoid making contributions if they have any grounds for suspecting that the money will be applied to terrorism. It will not be sufficient to say that the tin did not have "IRA" written on it. That is the essential point of the clause. It goes reasonably far and I believe that it is the right point to which to go in dealing with these matters by law.
Of the consequential amendments, No. 32 applies the powers of arrest and detention under Clause 9 to the new offence. Amendment No. 46 applies to Clause 11 the provisions of Schedule 3 about stopping and searching. Amendment No. 49 includes the new clause in the list of temporary provisions—in other words, it is subject to the considerations applying to how and when the Bill can be renewed and parts of it may or may not be dropped at certain stages.
Proceedings for an offence under the new clause, which raise certain fairly difficult issues of law, will for that reason be subject to the Attorney-General's consent.
I do not claim that the new clause or any legal provision will completely or absolutely deal with this abuse. What I have tried to do, which I think is in accordance with the view and the spirit of the Committee and the House, is to see whether we could sensibly find any means of legally strengthening the position. I believe that we have done that in a worthwhile and reasonable way.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: I am certain that the Home Secretary is right to introduce this clause. The House should be grateful to him and support it. I, like him, have some reservation about how effective it could be. The right hon. Gentleman properly stressed its limitations, and it is sensible to embark on the new clause on that basis.
No one with experience of dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland or elsewhere can doubt the considerable impetus that is given through money which is extorted by protection rackets, intimidation and many other methods. It is also true that some of the money comes from persuading innocent people to donate to causes which are not what they believe them to be. It is easy to give people the idea that they will be helping children in some part of the world, the unemployed or the underprivileged, but in fact the money might go to an organisation which would do no good to the children or anyone else.
That happens outside our shores, and we can do nothing about it except seek to stop it by persuasion. I know that


the Government, like previous Governments, are exercising persuasion on all the people concerned in different parts of the world. We can do something towards warning people who might be tricked into subscribing to such an organisation of the dangers involved and the legal risks which they run. The clause should command considerable support.
I am particularly glad that the clause refers to the
instigation of acts of terrorism
in general. I fully support the right hon. Gentleman's view that it should be no defence that a collecting tin does not bear the initials "IRA". If it was, it could lead immediately to clever acts of evasion. A wide provision is absolutely right.
I hope that the House will give the new clause every support. It may have a limited value but even if it prevents only a few subscriptions and denies terrorists some money it will be worth while.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The only reservation I have about the clause is that it devalues our legislative process by putting on the statute book provision which will never issue in action. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we must not imagine that the clause will completely stop the collection of money for terrorist purposes. That was a grossly over-optimistic way of putting it. In fact, it will not only not completely do the job but it will in practice make no contribution to doing it, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw).
No one will go round the pubs of West London or elsewhere admitting that he is collecting money for bombers to blow up people in Belfast or Birmingham. I do not believe that those concerned have ever done that, nor would they if they were in their right minds. But I believe that it has been done in the United States and perhaps in Canada. I am sure that Colonel Gaddafi knows full well what will happen to the money which he contributes. Collections that are made to aid the victims of terrorism or for some other purpose will not be caught by the clause. We are talking about people

within the jurisdiction of this country. I would be surprised if a prosecution ever resulted from the clause. Only a man with suicidal instincts would lay himself open to action under the clause, since he can achieve his objectives by the "nod is as good as a wink" process.
It might be said—I think that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border hinted at it—that even if the clause was not much good it might create a climate of disapproval. If I believed that I would be an enthusiastic supporter, because none of us object to the end which it seeks. But I do not think that there is the least chance of its creating that climate. No collecting done up to now will be lessened or stopped by the operation of the clause.
I shall not oppose the clause, because we are all agreed about its objectives, but it is a bad thing that, for the sake of show, public relations or whatever, we should put on our statute book laws which we know will never issue in action.

Mr. Powell: I agree with the general principle which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has just stated. Indeed, I would go further and disagree with his statement—if I heard him aright—that legislation might be engaged in in order to create a climate of approval or disapproval. I do not think that that is the function of legislation. Nevertheless, I believe that practical cases might well occur in which it would be possible to bring home the provisions of the clause. That being so, it is also legitimate to take account of the fact that there is considerable public indignation at the knowledge that collections take place. Consequently, if only a small proportion of those concerned can be brought to book it is right to provide powers to do so. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I hope that the clause will be added to the Bill.
I have two points with which I should like the Secretary of State to deal. Reference has already been made to acts which take place outside the jurisdiction. Does the expression in line 4, "receives or accepts", refer only to acts within the jurisdiction, or is a person liable to penalty under the clause if he has gone abroad, collected sums there and come back to this country with the product of his activities?
Even if that does not bite, does not the clause bite at some subsequent stage at which those sums collected abroad are handed over, as they must be, within the United Kingdom to those who will put them to the felonious objects to which the clause refers? Perhaps we could be clearer exactly to what extent the clause can bite on collections made outside the jurisdiction although they are to be applied within the jurisdiction.
My second point relates to matters of drafting. I imagine that the clause may have been drawn fairly hastily, and if in another place its drafting can be brought up to the best standard of legislation that would clearly be desirable. There are two points at which I think that it falls below that standard. In subsection (1), which reads,
If any person—
(a) intending that it shall be applied",
the pronoun "it" refers forward to the antecedent "gift or loan" which comes two lines later. That is bad English anyhow, and it is bad English in a statute. It should not be beyond the wit of a draftsman to convert this subsection into good English. We should as far as possible put good English on the statute book.
My second case is in subsection (2), which describes the "money or other property". I refer to lines 15 and 16, where I select the words with which I am concerned:
money or other property which … he had in his possession … and intended to be applied".
This links together as qualifying the word "property" a relative clause,
which … he had in his possession",
and a participle, "intended", used adjectivally. This is shocking English which would bring down condign punishment upon even a young student who dared to show up an essay which contained an ungrammatical expression of this character. I am sure that we shall have the sympathy of the Home Secretary, who is himself a writer of choice English, in ensuring that before the new clause finally reaches the statute book it is purged of its blemishes.

Mr. George Cunningham: If the right hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about this matter, ought he not to bring forward a draft which combines linguistic beauty

with clarity? Has he an alternative to offer?

Mr. Powell: I cannot believe that at this stage it would promote the cause that I have at heart for amendments to be put on the Notice Paper. My point will be on the record and I am sure that it has been taken by the Home Secretary. Fortunately, there are subsequent stages of the Bill. It is a known fact that however nicely one drafts amendments, the parliamentary draftsmen can draft them better. All I am asking for is that the Government should take the principle of my objection into account so that a minor and purely drafting amendment may be made to the clause later.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I have much sympathy with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), both on the general principle that we should not write into the statute book laws which we do not think will be effective and on his specific criticisms of the applicability of the clause. I should not be willing to support the clause if I did not think that one could divide clauses into parts that were effective and parts that were not.
The hon. Gentleman raised the difficulty regarding the financial purposes for which collections were made. He gave some examples, but I do not think that he gave a crucial example. Most of the collections are ostensibly on behalf of the dependants of those who were interned, previously, or who are now convicted prisoners, those who in some way or other are alleged to be victims of violence—not in the terms that we would use in this House but in terms of being victims of the application of punishment.
Perhaps it should be considered whether the clause could be used against that kind of collection. It is a fairly subtle framing of the invitation to contribute money but one which might escape even this clause. On the other hand, the later stages in the chain could possibly be affected by the clause and made the subject of action under it. It is the acceptance of money so collected, the applying or using of money so collected, particularly in paragraph (b) but also in parts of paragraph (a), against which there may be applicability. That gives me sufficient grounds for thinking


that the clause should be included in the statute.
However, I hope that the Government Front Bench will reflect on the particular kind of invitation to the public. Perhaps it is not unfair to say that it is disguised in many cases and proclaimed as a collection on behalf of the dependants of the boys in Long Kesh or the men in Armagh, or whatever it may be, but then the money is used in part for those dependants and other parts may be badly misused.

Mr. George Cunningham: In view of some of the criticisms of the clause that have been made, I want to ask the Home Secretary to put my mind at rest in one respect. It seems to have been implied that if a person collecting money were to say at the time when he was collecting it that he was collecting it for dependants or that he was collecting it for other charitable type purposes, he would put himself outside the scope of the clause. As I understand it, he would not do any such thing. In most circumstances it might be difficult to prove that although he said that he was collecting it for dependants, he intended it to be used for direct purposes in connection with violence or suspected that it would be so used. It might be difficult to prove that. But there certainly are situations in which one can believe that such proof would be sufficient to satisfy a jury.
As I see it, what the Home Secretary is doing in the proposed new clause is to provide for what might be a later occasion but one on which we do not want to leave ourselves without an offence on the statute book should the evidence be sufficient to bring before and convince a jury.
4.45 p.m.
I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary can say that no person will put himself outside the scope of this offence simply by pretending that he is collecting money for charitable type purposes, and that he would be subject to the offence if it were proved that his intention or his knowledge was sufficient to come within the very wide ambit of some of the phrases in the clause.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I very much welcome the Government's willingness to try to tighten up the legislation as

it first appeared when presented to the House. I would welcome any improvement to the Bill which closes any of the loopholes. However, as one of those who advanced a probing amendment in Committee, I must confess that I am a little puzzled as to how the new clause will improve the existing situation.
As a lawyer—I must confess that at the start to those who do not already know it—I believe that it is important that we should make sure that our legislation is clear and simple and is not in any sense confusing. I have no doubt that something will be done to Clause 1(1)(b) as a result of the new clause. However, does the wording of the new clause add anything to Clause 1(1)(b) as originally presented? Clause 1(1) says,
Subject to subsection (6) below, if any person … (b) solicits or invites financial or other support …".
The new paragraph says,
solicits or invites a gift or loan …".
"Gift or loan" would be financial support.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: At the same time, the difference is "proscribed organisation".

Mr. Lawrence: I understand that. That is another matter. The Home Secretary has moved on to another point. I see a re-wording "gift of loan", which adds nothing.
When we come to "proscribed organisation", the new clause says,
acts of terrorism to which this section applies.
The section to which it applies is presumably Section 1, which includes Schedule 1, which proscribes the IRA. Perhaps the Home Secretary will help me on this point.

Mr. Beith: Does not the clause refer to
terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom connected with Northern Irish affairs"?

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrence rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to consult a solicitor?

Mr. Lawrence: My experience of consulting a solicitor, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that I am none the wiser after a long consultation than I was at the start.
However, if the new clause is limited to
acts of terrorism to which this section applies
and this section applies to the IRA or acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland, it actually adds nothing to that which already exists.

Mr. George Cunningham: Perhaps I may put it as a non-lawyer and, therefore, one who is very ignorant on these matters. Is not the situation that in one case a person has to ask for subscriptions to the IRA, and in the other case he could ask for subscriptions to the Red Cross or the WVS, but so long as he was aware that the subscriptions were going to the IRA he would be caught? That is the difference.

Mr. Lawrence: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should have thought that any court would construe the words
other support for a proscribed organisation",
which is what the original wording was, in a way which would embrace support for that organisation even though it is not specifically named. The Home Secretary will recall that in Committee I did not support the views expressed by some of my hon. Friends that because the words "proscribed organisation" were implied, it merely meant that the person had to put "IRA" on the collection box. I do not agree with that. I think that any court construing support for a proscribed organisation would look at the wider connotation and consider whether the spirit of the thing was that money was going to a cause for which the proscribed organisation stood. If my interpretation is correct, the new clause adds nothing. No doubt I shall receive some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman.
I make no apology for raising that point because time and time again we are told, and we see for ourselves, that we are producing legislation which is practically incomprehensible to lawyers or laymen. I am for simplicity. Although the Government seem to be employing their best endeavours to improve the Bill as it stood I cannot understand that the new clause adds anything to collections.
I move on to another matter that is perhaps more important in the sense of its application. We were told in Com-

mittee that Section 1 of the 1974 Act had resulted In three prosecutions. I think that there was one case in Scotland in which there were two acquittals and one conviction. I believe that there was no prosecution in England. The point was made in Committee that it was well-known that collections were taking place not only in London public houses but in public houses in other areas. I sought not an amendment of the wording as the Government have now provided; I questioned whether the police needed greater powers to stop collections in public houses. I meant by that some extra power vested in the police to go in to search, to ascertain whether collections are taking place and to stop them.
I was given an assurance in Committee that the police did not require any further powers. I was told that the Government were satisfied that the police had adequate powers and that nothng more needed to be done. I welcome the new clause in so far as it is a second thought on the part of the Government. However, the matter requires more thought and continued thought as time passes. The fact is that collections are still being made.
The Home Secretary will recall that early in December, shortly after the Bill left Committee, two persons made statements that appeared in the national Press to the effect that it was laughable that they and their colleagues had all been making contributions, or that collections had been taking place, and that that continued to be the position. I think that one of those persons was the leader of the Sinn Fein in England. I think that the other person was an ordinary individual who happened to attend one of the public houses concerned. They both gave their names and addresses. Presumably they are known and are interviewable by the police. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter but, alas, as yet I have received no answer as to the action that he has taken.
If there is evidence that money is being collected and will continue to be collected to support the proscribed organisation or any organisation relating to it, or in support of the ends of that organisation, it is clear that an offence is being committeed. However, there appear to be no prosecutions.

Mr. Mikardo: Will the hon. Gentleman give me and the House the benefit of his legal advice? There is a worthy organisation that with the best possible objectives collects money in pubs on Saturday evenings not by taking collections but by its members—generally they are ladies—selling copies of its journal. They do not solicit gifts, donations or anything to which objection could be taken. The money so collected is used for the very best of purposes. If someone went around the pubs selling a journal, would that fall within the ambit of the clause? As a layman, my reading is that it would not, but I should be glad to have the hon. Gentleman's legal opinion.

Mr. Lawrence: My reading as a lawyer is that it would. If one is making money, even though offering money's worth and even though others are buying, financial support is being given. If a journal is produced on behalf of a proscribed organisation I should have thought that the courts would rule that that was support for the organisation. There may be other views on that matter.
In Committee I asked whether something could not be done to fill the obvious gap. I was surprised when I was told by the Government that it was not a gap, that everyone was satisfied that the rules existed and that collections had ceased. I think that those were the words of the Under-Secretary of State. I was surprised to hear her say that. The object of the exercise was to ask the Government to consider any way in which we can close the gap and stop the collections. Although we may differ in interpreting certain words in the new clause, I do not believe that the clause adds anything to that which already exists. Further, I do not believe that it is even remotely liable to close the loophole through which these collections are passing. I hope that I am wrong, but the evil is that the collections continue. I am sure that we are all agreed on that. If there is that agreement, the next thing is to consider what we can do to remedy the evil. Neither the clause as it stood nor the new clause remedy that evil.
I return to the question to which I received what I consider to be an unsatisfactory answer—in Committee—namely, what more can be done and what consideration is being given to extending the powers of the police to go into public

houses. Is there any other thinking that the Government have been toying with, is there any other clause which we might add to ensure that the absurd situation surrounding collections shall be remedied? The newspapers publicly flaunted the circumstances surrounding the collections, and it was their duty to do so. It is a matter that deeply offends many people of parts of Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: In what will be a brief reply I begin by saying that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that the clause is inoperative. I do not want to overstate the case for pieces of legislation or amendments which we bring forward, and I shall endeavour not to do so on this occasion, but I would not bring forward the clause if I did not think that it would have some practical effect. It can and will have some practical effect. I do not wish to sell it to the House on the basis that, like a philosopher's stone, it will solve the whole problem.
On jurisdiction, the act of receiving or accepting would apply only within the United Kingdom. It will be difficult enough to prove such an offence without trying to erect a somewhat fantasy world where one could have prosecutions for what happened in Boston, New York, or elsewhere. If the money is passed at a certain stage in the United Kingdom, that act could be caught even if the donor were outside the United Kingdom.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: My right hon. Friend's last remarks prompted a thought which may, on the face of it, seem absurd, but it is in my head and should be expressed. Is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland exempt from the provisions of the legislation? Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have from time to time made allegations that public money passing through the Northern Ireland Office is finding its way into the coffers of the Provisional IRA through commercial organisations engaged in building houses, and so on. The words in the clause are "knowing or suspecting". There will always be areas where we suspect that unpleasant things are happening but will allow them to go on for other reasons. However, a zealous police officer might consider that the


Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be arrested.

Mr. Jenkins: When my hon. Friend has absurd thoughts in his mind, I hope that he will not always feel compelled to express them to the House. I assure him that his thought is fairly absurd. I say that with the utmost good will. If by chance a zealous police officer were to take that view about my right hon. Friend—one can never exclude the possibility that a zealous police officer might take that view about him, or me for that matter—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General were prepared to endorse the police officer's view, no doubt the matter would lead to a prosecution. I hope that we may not concern ourselves unduly with that thought.
I was about to turn to the stylistic points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I do not share his absolute faith that it is possible to combine the prosaic need for clarity of parliamentary draftsmen with all the benefits of the most excellently and elegantly expressed English. In general, clarity and elegance of language go together. However, I have not on the whole found this with statutes. I can think of very few phrases in statutes which have resounded down the centuries as outstanding examples of English prose which have made a memorable contribution to our language. No Minister could possibly undertake to try to improve drafting from the point of view of the beauty of the language. If there be any lack of clarity, I shall look at it. There is another stage.
Looking cursorily and quickly at subsection (1)(a), the word "it" appears to occur a little prematurely. The drafting may not be ideal. The right hon. Gentleman was fair to me. I am sure that he is right that subsection (2) does not obey the strictest rules of English syntax, but I do not find the use of the two phrases to which he referred offensive. The wording is perfectly clear. But I will have the matter looked at before we get to the later stage.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made a number of points with which I do not agree. I thought that he

was clearly answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in an intervention. The process of the hon. Gentleman's mind is singularly opaque. I am sure that he was anxious to help the House and to make an effective Bill. However, he seemed to outline a problem and, when coming near to a solution, to turn away from it and to run down some quite different alley way.
The hon. Gentleman said that collections were going on and that we needed greater powers to deal with them. We have provided greater powers here to deal with two specific points. It will no longer be a defence to say "The collecting box did not have on it 'IRA'. It claimed to be for something else. The collectors said that it was for our boys in Ireland." The power that we are providing is substantially wider from that point of view. It means that if the person subscribing money has reason to suspect that it will be used for purposes connected with terrorism, he is at risk. Those are two substantial widenings of the power.
It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that the provisions are not wide enough and then, when they are made somewhat wider, saying that it is pointless—

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrence rose—

Mr. Jenkins: —let me finish my sentence—making the provision somewhat wider because he wants greater powers for the police. I should have thought that even his limited experience at the Bar had led him to the conclusion that the way to give the police greater powers was by means of a statute. That is what we have endeavoured to do. The House would not carry a proposal merely that the police should have greater powers to deal with this evil. We must consider in what way we can give the police greater powers. We have done that in two important respects—by widening the form of the collection and by putting the responsibility upon the donor as well as the collector. That is an important provision which is well worth making.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

INFORMATION ABOUT ACTS OF TERRORISM

'(1) If a person who knows or believes that he has information which might be of material assistance—

(a) in preventing an act of terrorism to which this section applies, or
(b) in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism to which this section applies,

fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as reasonably practicable to a constable, or in Scotland to a constable or the procurator fiscal, he shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding £400, or both, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine, or both.

(2) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken, and the offence may for the purpose of those proceedings be treated as having been committed, in any place where the offender is or has at any time been since he first knew or believed as mentioned in subsection (1) above.'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new Clause 4 and new Clause 5, both entitled Withholding of information about acts of terrorism, and Amendment No. 38.

Dr. Summerskill: The new clause creates a new offence of failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism connected with Northern Ireland affairs occurring within the United Kingdom, and various consequential changes are made through Amendment No. 38.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) moved a similar clause in Committee—he had also spoken on it when the Bill was first considered by the House—and argued persuasively that an offence of this nature should be created and that the practical difficulties about introducing it could be overcome.
The Government now take the view that the Bill could, with advantage,

include a provision of this kind. The effect of subsection (1) of the new clause is that it will be an offence, without reasonable excuse, to fail to disclose information as soon as reasonably practicable to the police which might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism in any part of the United Kingdom connected with Northern Irish affairs or in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of such an act. We believe that the clause should refer both to acts of terrorism which are about to be committed and ones which have been committed. Indeed, the former provision is important if the new clause is to make a practical contribution to forestalling terrorist incidents.
My hon. Friend's clauses were limited to arrestable offences, those carrying a statutory penalty of at least five years. The Government's clause applies where the information relates to any offence. There are some serious offences of a terrorist nature which are common law offences and are not within the scope of the term "arrestable offence". In any event, it is most unlikely, bearing in mind the nature of terrorism, that the act of terrorism to which the information relates will be other than a very serious offence.
It may not always be clear exactly where the offence of failing to give information occurs, if the defendant is moving around the United Kingdom, and to avoid any doubts which might otherwise arise subsection (2) makes it clear that the defendant may be prosecuted in any place where he has been since he first became aware of the information. The offence is a hybrid one subject to a maximum penalty on summary conviction of six months' imprisonment or a fine of £400, or both, and on conviction on indictment to five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.
Our consequential amendments have the effect of enabling the power to examine people at the ports contained in Section 10 to be exercised in relation to persons suspected of committing the new offence.

Mr. Michael Alison: On behalf of the Conservative Opposition, I want to thank the Government for tabling the new clause. I wish to


congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) since the arguments he deployed in Committee obviously appealed to the Government and led to the new provisions. It does not seem to relate to the provision referred to by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo)—namely, as some kind of window dressing. I believe that the clause will have a practical effect.
Its practical effect is most likely to occur—and perhaps the Minister would reflect on this—in circumstances to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred in Standing Committee. Let me quote what the hon. Gentleman said:
The situation in practice is more likely to be that a prosecution is brought against 10 people, for example, for a given outrage, two of them being charged with committing the act and comprising to do it, and the others being charged formally only with conspiracy. It may be that the jury is satisfied that some of the accused did it and that some of them conspired to do it, but is not satisfied that others of them conspired to do it. The jury may, on the evidence, be satisfied that those persons knew about it and could have informed the police. I suggest that that is a realistic scenario. As the law stands, the people found to have knowledge but who did not conspire could not be convicted of anything. I suggest that that is a situation which we should remove."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16th December 1975; c. 149.]
That seems to be a realistic scenario. If that is the situation the Minister believes is likely to be caught by the new clause, as I suspect, will she comment on the hypothetical case advanced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury involving a group of 10, two of whom are found guilty of the offence, a further five are found guilty of conspiracy and the remaining three cannot be found guilty either of conspiracy or of committing an offence? After the new clause is enacted, could one of those people subsequently be tried for an offence under the new provision? It would become evident during the trial that he or she must have known what was going on, although one could not pin a precise conspiracy or felony on the person concerned.
If that is the scenario, I am anxious to know at what point the new offence is likely to bite. This is the situation that will arise for people on the fringe of an outrage. They can be charged with

a major offence, but the chances are that they will be the small fish at the bottom of the net. It should be possible to apply to them the new clause, and perhaps the Minister can enlighten us whether that is the case.
If those concerned have to be tried separately on different charges at a different trial, the matter could be dealt with by way of summary conviction, but the penalty in the provision is on the low side. In a magistrates' court the fine should be at least £1,000 where people are very much part of the group who perpetrate the offence.
I should like to mention one drafting point. It is surely novel in parliamentary terms to seek to pin down what a person believes to be an offence. The first part of the clause reads:
If a person who knows or believes that he has information which might be of material assistance …".
I do not see how one can establish what a person believes. I can visualise a situation in which it can be said categorically that somebody must have known what was to happen and could not fail to have been aware of the situation, but to try to pin down what is in somebody's mind surely envisages an intolerable burden of proof. It may be that there are common law precedents for this wording.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Beith: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that the person concerned might wish to advance the defence that he knew that certain things were to take place but did not believe that they were related to the commission of an offence?

Mr. Alison: If that is the offence, how do we prove the erroneousness of the disbelief? Surely there is nothing to be gained or lost.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when a person is charged with handling or receiving stolen goods, the concept is that the person concerned knows or believes them to have been stolen. That is the standard test. These words have been taken from that wording and they come up in almost every court every day of the week. The proof is based on knowledge or belief that property is stolen. There at other objections to the new clause,


but certainly on that point the hon. Gentleman is in error.

Mr. Alison: I know that that comment comes from a practising barrister, and to reassure me the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) brings his legal knowledge to bear. However, I still see a marked difference between the receipt of stolen goods where a recipient has such goods in his hands and, on the other hand, a belief that their origin brings an awareness of the character, nature and origin of the goods. There is a dividing line which should be made clear.
We welcome the new clause, but I hope that the Minister will deal with the matters I have raised.

Mr. George Cunningham: As the initiator of this change, I should like to offer my views, unauthoritative though they be, on the final point mentioned by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). The comparison mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) relates to Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, a provision on which I based my amendments last year.
The purpose of Section 5 of the 1967 Act is to make it an offence not to give information to the police about an arrest-able offence as long as a bribe has been accepted for not giving the information. The wording is very similar to the drafting put forward by the Government and myself. It says:
Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence or some other arrestable offence has been committed, and that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender …
and so on. So the concept is not new to our criminal law. It is a heavy burden of proof, but where it is proved to the satisfaction of the jury, there is ample precedent for making it a criminal offence.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash seemed to think the normal procedure would be that when some people had been tried for a substantive offence, they could then be tried for not having provided information. I do not think that

would be the situation. I think the police will charge people with a number of offences at the same time. It is very common for a person to be charged with a serious and a lesser offence and to be acquitted of the serious charge but found guilty on the lesser offence.
I understand that it would not be possible for a court with no charge before it in respect of a disclosure of information offence to find a person guilty of such an offence after acquitting or convicting him on a substantive offence, although there are cases where a court can convict in some circumstances. For instance, a man can be convicted of attempting an offence even if he has been charged and tried with committing it.
I thank the Government for accepting the substance of the amendments I suggested a year ago and for improving my poor drafting. I understand why they have extended the coverage to non-arrestable offences. However, if there are serious offences, such as kidnapping, which are not technically arrestable, I wonder whether Section 5 of the 1967 Act should not also be extended to these offences.
The Government also appear to have done something which is a little different from what would have been achieved by my amendments. There appears to be no provision for acquiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General to a prosecution. The Criminal Law Revision Committee of 1965, when recommending the provisions in Section 5 of the 1967 Act, attached importance to the necessity of having the approval of the DPP because it does not want over-zealous policemen, or procurators-fiscal in Scotland, bringing actions against spouses for not giving information in respect of a spouse. The Government have obviously decided that this is not a weighty argument in this case, so I wonder whether it is right to continue it in respect of the 1967 Act. However, I thank the Government for going as far as they have gone.

Mr. Powell: I am glad that the efforts in Committee of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), which were industrious and protracted, have borne fruit in this new clause, among other places.
I wish to ask the Minister one question which may be of substance. There is a reference in the new clause to disclosing the information to a constable. Could the Under-Secretary spend a few moments explaining the ambit and meaning of "constable" in this context because there is an important point annexed. There are many circumstances in which a person having information, and wishing to deal with it in a public-spirited manner, would be frightened to communicate directly with the police and might choose a more indirect method of communication which he was reasonably sure would result in the information being received and acted upon in the proper quarters. I understand that this clause will apply in Northern Ireland, and there are many parts of the Province where perfectly law-abiding citizens who become aware of this kind of information would be in fear of their lives if they brought it to the attention of the police, but who might, nevertheless, wish to bring it to notice in a safer manner and who ought to take reasonable steps to do so.
The clause makes the offence unduly restrictive or the onus unduly heavy by saying that the information must be disclosed to a constable, apparently, according to the wording of the clause, directly. I hat is the main point to which I would e glad if the Under-Secretary could address some remarks.
With reference to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), having listened to the semi-parallels adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I wonder whether the words "knows or believes" in line 1 of the new clause have got themselves attached in the wrong place. Of course a person will always know that he has information. There is no question of his just believing that. There is no difference between one having information and knowing that one has it. But a person may genuinely not be sure whether that information would be of material assistance. He is aware that Murphy—I have not chosen the name with any prejudicial intention—went down a certain road at a certain time, but he may not know that Murphy was going down that road to commit a breach of the law. If the Under-Secretary is looking at the point

raised by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, perhaps she could take this point into consideration.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Some of us are unhappy with the Bill itself, let alone the new clauses. I fully support what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about lines 1 and 2 of the clause. I also support what the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said. I warn him that I shall be making a speech in his constituency in the near future.
The clause begins as follows:
If a person who knows or believes that he has information which might be of material assistance".
What does "might" mean? I do not know. I am confused about it and if my speech is confused, that is why. I accept what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South about the difficulty of determining whether the information is of material assistance. A person who has seen two people lurking about suspiciously may temporarily dismiss that information from his mind because he has so frequently seen similar occurrences. If that person is asked about what he has seen and happens to reply in an Irish accent, he may be in danger. How can he prove that he did not know about what subsequently happened? The clause places a considerable onus on the ordinary man in the street to prove a set of negatives, which is extremely difficult.

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. George Cunningham indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorne: It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) to nod his head. I have been aware during the past half hour that this is a matter to be argued by lawyers and banisters, not by laymen such as myself. One wonders whether this sort of legislation is deliberately designed to fill the pockets of members of the legal profession, who spend a great deal of time arguing what is meant by a simple phrase.
In line 5 there is a reference to "preparation". A great many operations are involved in preparing to carry out acts of terrorism with which, quite by accident, a person could be connected. There is a man at present in Long Kesh who


was asked by a complete stranger to be given a lift on his motor cycle. Subsequently, when that stranger was riding on the pillion, he said "Take it easy, Jack, I have a bomb on board". Eventually the motor cycle was identified, and no explanation could satisfy the police that its owner did not know that the man to whom he had given the lift intended to commit an act of violence. He might be guilty or he might not. I do not know the answer, but there is an element of doubt.
In line 7 there is a reference to "reasonable excuse". How do we interpret "reasonable"? Barristers and judges may have a method of determining what "reasonable" means, but I have not.
There is only one course open to us and that is to reject the clause. My main reason for saying that is the evidence we have of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Of the number of people taken into custody, the number subsequently charged is an infinitesimal proportion. How many more will be dragged into the net by this legislation? Shall we subsequently be talking of 0·1 per cent. of the people taken into custody who are charged with an offence under this clause? We should reject the clause.

Mr. Lawrence: I join in expressing congratulations to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on introducing this new concept and thereby helping to make the Bill more effective. Just how far it will be more effective we must wait to see.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). The efficacy of the clause will not be impaired if no prosecutions are brought under it. Such a clause can be used as a legitimate lever in any criminal matter—particularly the disgusting crime of terrorism—to oblige a person to give information that he would not otherwise give which might provide the means of tracking down the more efficient terrorists. In due course we shall not look only to see whether prosecutions have been brought under the clause. We shall wish to know whether information has been obtained as a result of the clause, even though no prosecution is brought.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury concerning the Director of Public Prosecutions. It may not be desirable for a charge to be preferred against someone who refuses to give information, even though, according to the terms of the clause, he has committed an offence. It may not be desirable that those about whom information is given should know who has given it. When we reach the area where it is more important to encourage the giving of information than to bring charges on relatively minor aspects of terrorism, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General should first be consulted.
Before I came to the House, as a practising barrister I was in almost daily contact with the phrases used in the clause. Handling stolen property is a common form of offence dealt with in our criminal courts. I support the wise assessment of the value of the first sentence in the clause made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is nonsense to put it in that way. The clause begins:
If a person who knows or believes that he has information which might be of material assstance".
That is the sort of nonsense about which judges complain and of which lawyers make a good deal of meat. The way in which that form of words, which is shorthand for the mens rea—the mental element of guilt—in a criminal offence, is normally applied is after the substantive act—actus reus—has been proved. If a person has information the question has to be asked whether he knows or believes that it would be of assistance. That is the way in which that phrase is employed in the Theft Act and other legislation. That is easily understood by lawyers and judges. Not a penny of public time or money would be involved in putting the words round in the correct way.
I come to "reasonable excuse". Notwithstanding the strictures—which were unjustified, and merely showed that the Home Secretary did not quite understand my argument—upon the opaqueness of my reasoning on new Clause 1, I see with pleasure that the Government have employed in new Clause 3 my suggestion in Committee and added a defence of "reasonable excuse". A "reasonable


excuse" is that excuse which is reasonable in all the circumstances, and the best people to judge that are 12 good men or women in a jury. The law has no difficulty in dealing with the concept of "reasonable excuse", which is easily explained to juries, and if the juries think that a person has a reasonable excuse for not doing that which the offence requires, they will acquit.
Subject to the reconsideration of the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General, and the amendment to subsection (1), I support the clause and welcome it. I hope that the Under-Secretary will ensure that the clause is amended at least in these respects before the matter comes to be considered in another place.

Mr. Mikardo: I start my consideration of this clause from a proposition which I am sure will command the support of the whole House. It is that we have to find the best way as far as is humanly possible of preventing any act of terrorism from being committed. If one has been committed we have to find the best way of bringing the criminal to justice. I hope, therefore, that anything I might say in derogation of this clause will be considered against that background.
I would be the last person to try to create a situation in which a chap who should be giving information does not, and gets away with it, or in which a chap who has committed a crime gets off free. However, we have all been conscious of the fact, and we have been agonised by it throughout the proceedings on this Bill, its predecessor and other related Bills, that we have a duty to hold a balance between, on the one hand, the prevention of crime and the punishment of the perpetrator, and, on the other hand, intolerable incursions into the liberties of people and intolerable dangers of people being punished when they are not guilty of any offence.
The clause upsets that balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is, as we all know, a modest man. In my judgment he is unnecessarily modest, and he is being ridiculously modest in suggesting that the wording of new Clause 3 is better than the wording of his new Clauses 4 and 5 which cover the same

ground. His clauses may have certain defects—I did not quite follow the point about arrestable offences—but they could have been put right by Government amendments. They could even be put right in a way which the Home Secretary has forecast in respect of another matter. However, what makes my hon. Friend's new clauses superior is that they refer to knowledge and not to belief. That is of major importance. New Clause 5 refers to
Any person who, knowing that an explosion
not "believing" that he knows about an explosion. It does not refer to a person "knowing or believing" that he has information—

Mr. George Cunningham: What my hon. Friend says is perfectly true in respect of new Clause 5. However, new Clause 4 uses the phrase "knowing or believing" and it is that clause which relates to the situation where an offence has been committed and not simply to knowledge that a bomb is to go off at some future time.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps we could devise another clause to get rid of the defects in all the other clauses, since it is manifest from the debate so far that none of them is perfect. The use of the word "believe" present difficulties in two different and, in a way, opposite respects. First, the situation arises in which a person is to be prosecuted because he has no reasonable excuse for not disclosing information. The man is regarded as guilty because he believed that he had information.
Let us imagine what happens in the court. The authorities are not detaining without any onus of proof. The charge must now be proved. What authority, including the Director of Public Prosecutions, considering whether to bring a charge and taking into account, as these authorities always quite properly do, the chances of securing a conviction, will believe that it can get a court to accept that the defendant believed that he had information? Presumably he is on that charge because he cannot be charged with actually having the information, which is an easy charge to prove or to disprove.


The prosecutor will be charging the defendant with believing that he had information, but how will be know that the defendant believed that? How can I conceivably know what any hon. Gentleman is believing at this moment, and how can any hon. Gentleman know what I believe? The prosecutor will be unable to make that charge stick.
I am a layman, not a lawyer. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) that one advantage I have gained from being in this place for a long time is that I am no longer being used by lawyers, and I am no longer impressed by their constant arrogation unto themselves not only of a condition of omniscience but of a condition of intellectual superiority over all their fellow men. They do not get away with that with me.
Even though I am not a lawyer, I cannot see a parallel between a person believing he has information and someone believing that goods which are offered to him have been stolen. If someone were to offer any one of us a gold sovereign for £5 or, which is perhaps more relevant, a pound of potatoes for 3p, we would have fairly solid grounds for suspecting that those potatoes had been stolen. Nothing of the sort could apply in this case.

Mr. Alison: I am listening with fascination to the hon. Gentleman's line of argument about belief. In this context it must almost certainly be a defence to say "I might have believed it at the time but I am an apostate. I no longer believe it. I have changed my mind."

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman has made a very powerful point. I said that he cannot conceivably know what I believe. If he cannot know what I believe now, he certainly cannot know what I believed last Tuesday.
We therefore are to create an offence which no one can prove upon the offender, and that seems to be a nonsense. The use of the word "belief" has a reverse and, possibly, an even worse effect. I spoke about holding the balance between justice and civil liberty. We in this country would never want to create the sort of informers' society which exists in totalitarian countries. I know of

nothing more horrible than that. After all, a person who believes that he has information about a chap might be that chap's child. How strongly and rightly we object to the practice in some societies where children are encouraged to snoop and inform upon their parents, where workers are encouraged to snoop and inform upon their workmates, where people are encouraged to snoop and inform upon their neighbours.
The problem here is additional, because if I inform on someone under the provisions proposed in new Clause 3, that man can be proceeded against, unlike the case in almost every other situation, without any burden of proof. All hon. Members have had the experience of someone coming to them with little whispers that "Joe Bloggs is up to this and that and the other bit of no good." If such people went to the police, the first reaction of the police would be, "Can this be proved?" They would take the view that they would not waste time thinking about Joe Bloggs and his alleged misdeeds unless there was hard evidence. But in the case of people informed upon under this legislation, they are taken into detention at once and asked questions afterwards.
If, for example, I wanted to get rid of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South for a few days because I did not like the way he was talking, all I would have to do would be to go to the police and say, "I believe that that fellow Thorne is up to no good." These provisions are an encouragement to that sort of thing. I could make the thing stick even more if, instead of choosing my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South, I chose my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). I could say, "I believe that those two are up to no good because they are Pat and Mike and therefore they have to be viewed with suspicion."
I am putting the case lightly, and perhaps it sounds flippant. But I am not flippant about it. I take it very seriously indeed. These provisions are an encouragement to irresponsible informers. That is, above all, damaging in terms of this Bill, because it is one under which a chap can be put into detention and the questions asked afterwards. We know that the overwhelming majority of those


who have been put into detention have been released without charge against them and without even suspicion after a whole. Therefore, there is a tendency to grab them first and to ask questions afterwards. I do not think it right that we should set in motion such operations on the basis of belief or, as in the case of new Clause 1, of suspicion.

Mr. George Cunningham: If a person were, without sufficient ground, to give bogus information to the police of the kind my hon. Friend seems to be thinking about, that person would himself be committing the criminal offence, under the Theft Act, of wasting police time. No one is encouraging a person to give bogus information. I ask my hon. Friend whether he has had bombs go off in his constituency. I have had them go off in mine. As the law stands, if someone knows that one is going to go off that night and he does not give information to the police, he is not guilty of an offence. That is the situation to which my hon. Friend must address himself. If it is discovered and if it is proved that a person could have given information and saved lives and maimings as a result, do we want to say to him, "You have committed no offence. We deplore what you have done but we are not going to charge you with any offence"?

Mr. Mikardo: That is not the point at all. I am in favour of a clause which does penalise a man who has information and does not disclose it. I have said so from the start. But I say that none of the new clauses we are discussing would do the job in a way whereby innocent people would not be proceeded against. My hon. Friend says that if I give bogus information to the police, they can proceed against me. But he should note that under this proposal they could not do so because I could always say, "I believed that it was true", and they could never prove that I did not believe that it was true.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: On what basis does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this proposal will make it more likely that people will give bogus information against others for the purpose of getting them locked up merely because there is an offence of not giving information when one has genuine information?

I do not see the connection between the two.

Mr. Mikardo: The connection is precisely the point I was just making when the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted. If people have information which they cannot substantiate, they are hesitant to give it for fear of that fact recoiling upon their heads in proceedings taken against them. But if they have 100 per cent. protection against such proceedings being taken against them and are simply able to say, "It turned out to be bogus but I believed that it was true", that is encouraging people to be irresponsible.
I am not saying that people are villains and are going to go to the police with bogus information. I am saying that these provisions will make them less careful because they will have a defence. They can say that they believed that it was true.
It is because I believe that new Clause 3 contains the danger of a snoopers' charter or of creating an informers' society that I find myself unable to support it. Notwithstanding his modesty, I would have had a go at supporting the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, but since one is not likely to have an opportunity of doing so, especially as he himself has abandoned the ring, I fear that I am in a position in which I cannot do other than refuse to support new Clause 3.

Mr. Edward Lyons: One gets used to attacks on lawyers, although sometimes they intend not to oppose their attackers but to give them support. But sometimes we do not agree with the arguments of those who are so critical of us. It is nonsense to talk of lawyers always having an intellectual superiority. Nowadays, it is taking more and more courage for lawyers to open their mouths at all before some members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Whereas the formula "knowing or believing" is common in English law and in itself does not arouse misgivings in my breast, there are matters in new Clause 3 which worry me. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) referred to new Clauses 4 and 5, put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South


and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that they are in many ways to be preferred to new Clause 3. In their case, it would be a prerequisite that an arrestable offence would have had to have taken place before anyone else could be charged with anything. It is also implicit in new Clause 5 that an offence had to be known to be about to take place.
Under new Clause 3, however, it seems that if an eccentric believes that an offence is to be committed when in fact it is not going to be committed, when it is a figment of his imagination, he can still become victim. It is not necessary under this clause to prove that an offence was ever intended by the principals. It has only to be shown that a person believed an offence was intended.
Under the Theft Act, where there is a charge of handling or receiving stolen property, it is a prerequisite that it must be shown that the property was stolen before considering whether the person charged believed that the property was stolen.
There seems to be no requirement in the clause to prove that anyone was planning a terrorist act, or had committed it, before a man can be charged with failure to disclose a belief that he had information which might prevent it.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Lawrence: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is another reason why the DPP should be brought in to consider whether there should be a prosecution under this clause?

Mr. Lyons: It seems to be a reason for tightening up the wording of the clause. The first prerequisite ought to be that there is evidence that the principal offence has taken place, or was planned, before anyone can be convicted of not giving information about it.
Secondly, although a man can be convicted for failing to disclose his belief that he has information which might be of material assistance, there is no burden on the prosecution to show that the information would have been of material assistance. In addition to the accused person believing that he has information which might be of assistance, there should

be a burden on the prosecution to show that, had the man given the information, it would have been of assistance and not irrelevant. It could be totally irrelevant information, and yet the man could be convicted for withholding it. There is, therefore, the question not only of the man's belief but whether the information was relevant. Would it have been of material assistance? It is for these reasons that I am rather unhappy with the wording of the clause.
It is true that the offence in the clause comes into the category of a lesser offence. To that extent it will reduce the number of convictions on more serious charges, because juries often opt for the easy course of convicting on the lesser charge. On the other hand, it is also true that there will be more convictions of persons who are on the fringes of terrorism and who sympathise with it.
I should like to hear from the Minister what precautions exist to prevent prosecutions where there is no evidence that a terrorist offence was planned. That aspect worries me. I should also like to know what precautions there are to prevent prosecutions where the information was of no relevance, the belief having been held by a man of curious mental processes.
I apologise to the Minister that I now have to take the chair at the meeting of the Home Office group upstairs, and cannot therefore be present to listen to the answer, but I hope to learn of the answer before I am called upon to vote—if there is a vote—on this clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Considerable doubt about the clause has been shown in our minds by several hon. Members and therefore it would be useful to have some examples taken over the last six months during which the legislation has been operating without this clause. Are there any instances where the clause would have prevented terrorism in some way? Because of the many doubts, we must be clear about the necessity to include the clause.
There would seem to be two possible reasons for the clause. One may be the desire, once an event has happened, to make sure that as wide a group of people as possible will be punished for it. I can understand that attitude, although it is far more important to make certain


that we catch those who instigated the offence rather than those who may have been caught up on its fringes.
The other possible reason is that the authorities are disturbed about insufficient information being given. Information will be given only if the political climate is right. That is the key. We have to ensure that in every community people will want to provide information rather than having to be threatened before providing it. That is one of the main drawbacks of the clause.
If people are to be encouraged in any way to come forward with information, the need for it must be made widely known. There may be a kind of balance of terror involved, so that they may have serious reservations about what action to take. One wonders whether the penalties in the clause would persuade people to act in one direction rather than another. A consequence of giving information might be revenge on them. It does not seem to be a very good idea for the Government to have to threaten people to persuade them to come forward with information.
One of the major problems for the police on many occasions is how to sort out useless information from valuable information. I wonder whether this measure, if well-publicised, will result in the production of a large amount of useless rather than important and relevant information.
I am anxious about hindsight in this respect. All of us in our everyday lives have experienced a chain of events. We may not have known which course to follow at the time, but afterwards the right course might have appeared obvious. One of the most dangerous aspects of the clause is that at the end of a case a jury, knowing all the facts, might think that it was obvious to someone that he should have supplied information when during the course of the events it was nothing like as obvious to the person involved.
New Clauses 4 and 5 appear to have many advantages. I particularly stress that new Clause 4 refers to an offence having taken place. That concentrates the mind. It makes it clear to a person that something has happened and that he ought to be searching his mind about whether he knows anything about it.
New Clause 5 contains the words "about to occur", which produce some sense of immediacy. There are some advantages in the use of these words, and another is the fact that the DPP is involved.
Although I have great reservations and cannot see the need for any of the three new clauses, if we are to have anything of this sort in the Bill I prefer new Clauses 4 and 5 to new Clause 3. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the assurance that in the last 12 months a need for the clause has been positively found and that many things could have been done had it been included.

Mr. Litterick: I hope that every hon. Member shares my anxiety that in considering this legislation we shall not throw out the libertarian baby with the antiterrorist bath water. I hope that we shall not allow ourselves to be intimidated into not opposing measures which our minds tells us are daft, inconsistent, or likely to be unfair, simply because we do not wish to be seen in our constituencies as being remotely in favour of terrorism.
My concern is for the vast majority of people who are not terrorists and are never likely to be. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) concerning the vagueness and ambiguity of the words used. These offences are being created against the background of an Act which has already created huge powers for the police—powers of discretion, powers to arrest and powers to detain.
Apparently, this type of offence is not like some other offences in other legislation, because the police have powers to hold people for days on end under this legislation. Having been denounced by a fellow citizen who may or may not have a malignant intention, who may or may not have a serious social intention and who may or may not be deranged, it is difficult for the citizen to disentangle himself from the hassle in which he is involved, because the police, who may be mistaken about the sanity or motivation of the individual who gives them the information, will naturally feel that they have to vindicate their actions. They


will try as hard as they can—which generally will mean keeping the victim incarcerated for days on end—to show that they have done the right thing. In saying that I am not attacking the police. It is a perfectly natural way for them to behave, because they are human and they have professional pride.
This legislation encourages people to the notion that informing is good. The Government would like to dress it up and say that they are trying to encourage the responsible citizen. I argue that they are doing the opposite. They are encouraging the worst elements in our society to inform and to denounce. They are creating an atmosphere that will be poisonous.
It has been said already that no one as yet has brought forward examples of specific situations during the operation of the Act in which the clause would have been of assistance. However, I can cite an instance in which the kind of information that this clause is intended to elicit has been given, and it may illuminate the way in which the police are inclined to interpret information of this kind.
During the Second Reading debate, I mentioned a constituent of mind whose house had been raided and turned over by the police, following which he was detained. Since then I have discovered the basis on which the police acted. Strangely, it turned out that my constituent was denounced by a relative who was an alcoholic. He was seriously ill as a result of his condition, and he had conceived a grudge against my constituent. He felt that my constituent had inflicted damage and therefore that he should be repaid.
The police acted on this information. In so doing, as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, they revealed certain other aspects of police mentality. First, they acted on this flimsy testimony that my constituent might be implicated in terrorist activity. Secondly, having got themselves into his house, they exercised their discretion to judge him on the basis of evidence which they found in the house of other associations which no one in this House would suggest had any remote terrorist potentiality. They were associations with organisations like Amnesty

International and the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
My point in mentioning this matter again is that the police are given a great deal of discretion to make judgments. This clause encourages individual citizens to make subjective judgments about other citizens, not so much about what they have done or may have done, but about who they are and what they are.
A man could be suspected by the police of knowing information which the police might regard as potentially valuable simply because he worked alongside a man, on the basis that anyone working alongside a man for a number of years is bound to know something about him, about his friends, about which organisation he has joined and about his beliefs. We know from the many reported cases under the Act that the police have displayed a very unhealthy interest in people's beliefs. They want to know who is a Communist or who thinks he is a Communist. They want to know who is a militant or who thinks he is a militant. They want to know who might be interested in the affairs and activities of Amnesty International or the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
I submit that this clause encourages everyone to adopt that kind of hideous psychology and to look upon his neighbour as someone who might be denounceable and towards whom he should feel hostility. This leads very easily to the attitude "Anyone who thinks differently from me should be denounced and, having been denounced, should be detained and interrogated", and then the whole hassle of the anti-terrorism legislation procedure begins for yet another unfortunate citizen. I shall oppose new Clause 3 for these reasons.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate. However, I must challenge the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick).
The hon. Gentleman said that he objected to the clause because it gave the impression that informing was good—implying that informing is always bad. But we must be realistic and consider the interests of society. The clause says simply that anyone with information


which he either knows or believes will be of material assistance in stopping or preventing a terrorist act has a duty to take that information to the police and, indeed, that he will be guilty of an offence if he does not.
If we consider the interests of society, we must all realise that it is to the advantage of society and in the interests of society that people with information of that kind should come forward. It is not to say that informing is always bad. It is in the interests of society to make it clear that informing to the police in those circumstances should be encouraged if by encouraging informing we can avoid a terrorist act which will cause the deaths or the maiming of innocent people.
I come new to this debate, not having served on the Standing Committee. But, having listened to the debate, I support the principle behind the Government's new clause and those tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
I believe that the argument of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) about "believing" as an alternative to "knowing" is nonsense. I may have some information which I know to be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism. Equally, I may have information which, although I cannot say with certainty I know to be of material assistance, nevertheless I believe to be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism. I have just as much a duty to take information to the police which I believe to be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism, even if my belief turns out to be wrong, as if I know it to be of material assistance.
In my vew, the Government's new Clause 3 would be considerably weaker if it contained no reference to "knowing" or "believing". A person may be in a position where he believes strongly that an explosion is about to take place and that it is his duty to attempt to stop it. However, the police may never be able to prove that he knew it was likely to happen because something else may intervene to prevent the explosion.
I cannot see that having a provision in our law which makes it a criminal offence for anyone not to bring forward information which he believes genuinely or

which he knows will be of assistance in preventing an act of terrorism will in practice encourage bogus references to the police. I believe that its existence as a criminal offence will encourage people with such information to come forward and, therefore, it will avoid the act of terrorism itself.
Therefore, although I agree with the comments about the position of the words "knows or believes" in the first line of the new clause and take the view that it could be looked at again, I believe that the principle behind the new clause is right. I hope very much that it will be passed by the House.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Like many of my hon. Friends I have always had sincere reservations about this type of legislation. There are many aspects of it which could never really be enforced. However, I have listened to the academic arguments. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is present, because he has been to Northern Ireland and he will know the circumstances in which this type of legislation could operate.
I fully understand the principles behind the Bill. I fully support my hon. Friends who want to stop terrorism being perpetrated in this country and who take the view that the receipt of information may prevent terrorist acts from being carried out. Certain parts of the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland, but I am not certain whether this clause will do so. If it does, I state here and now that there are certainly thousands of people in Northern Ireland—I do not say thousands and thousands—who know the identity of people who have been engaged in acts of terrorism and who are associated with terrorist organisations. However, either because they do not want to be labelled as informers or, more importantly, because they are afraid of reprisals, those people do not let the authorities know.
The clause states that a person can be fined £400 if, without reasonable excuse he does not make the information available to the authorities. What can be classed as a more reasonable excuse than for a person to say "I did not give the information because if I did I should be shot dead"?
A week ago yesterday I attended the funeral of a young boy called Desmond O'Brien whose body was found the previous Sunday. He had been shot by the IRA on the grounds that he was a police informer. I do not know whether that is true, but the IRA issued that statement. The relatives of the boy have consistently stated that he was not a police informer. However, the fact is that the boy's body was found in the Hannah-town Road and he was shot for being a police informer.
I freely concede that there are many people in what could be called the difficult areas of Northern Ireland and especially in Belfast who may have information about, or at least a suspicion that they have, people who are engaged in terrorist activities. I agree with the observations of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about information being given to a constable. In Northern Ireland it is quite unrealistic for any person to give information to a constable. That is why there is a confidential telephone.

Mr. Beith: In my view the confidential telephone would constitute the giving of information to a constable.

Mr. Fitt: I think that that would have to be clarified by the Minister when she winds up the debate.
If a person is charged under this new clause with not giving information, a reasonable excuse to advance to any jury would be that of self-protection and self-preservation. The accused person could say, "I was afraid to give the information on the ground that I might forfeit my own life by so doing."

Mr. Ron Thomas: Or the lives of the members of his family.

Mr. Fitt: Yes, indeed. The Bill is dealing with terrorists, and terrorists are ruthless people who have no hesitation or compunction about shooting people who may be opposed to what they believe they are justified in doing.

Mr. Mikardo: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's observations, but there is an additional point. When a chap is

accused of having had information and not giving it, what will happen if he says "But I did give it—I gave it over the confidential telephone"?

Mr. Fitt: Exactly, that is certainly another valid point. However, if a man gives information to the police which indicates that he suspects someone of being engaged in the commission of a terrorist offence, his information would be evidence and he would have to appear before the court. Moreover, he would be a witness for the prosecution and his name and address would probably be made public. I stress that the people involved in acts of terrorism are ruthless. If they did not take the informant's life, they could easily intimidate him by attacking his family.
Therefore, people would be extremely reluctant to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution because that evidence may lead to the loss of their own life. I do not envisage any way in which the Government could entice such people to go into the witness box. People's lives are more precious than any telephone call or any information which they may wish to give to the police. At present in Northern Ireland there are many thousands of people who through absolute fear—not because they support the terrorists' actions—are not prepared to give information to the police.
I believe that if the State is to enforce this law and inflict penalties, it has a duty to give some protection to those who give the information. I am not in any way supporting informers, but certainly if the State is to impose a penalty on someone for not giving information and therefore making it obligatory for him to give information, it must protect that person. Will it give police protection at the man's home or place of employment? Will that protection last for a day, a week, two years, 10 years or a lifetime? Terrorists have long memories, as has been proved time and time again throughout the centuries of the Irish conflict and Anglo-Irish relations.
Having listened to the arguments, especially those advanced by my hon. Friends, I do not believe that the clause is worth the paper on which it is written. I do not believe that the Government


can force or coerce people to give information. That is an absolute impossibility. In my view people will be more concerned about the protection of their own lives than about any threats which are contained in the Government's new clause.

Dr. Summerskill: I shall reply briefly to most of the many points which have been raised. The hypothetical situation raised by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) in which he asked the fate of the three remaining people was well answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) who said that in practice the prosecution would probably charge them with an alternative offence right from the start.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the words "knows or believes". I agree with the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who referred to the Criminal Law Act 1967. The word "believes" is referred to in Section 5 of that Act which makes it an offence for a person to accept a bribe for not disclosing information which he knows or believes would assist in a conviction. I believe that it is no more difficult in principle to prove "believing" in the courts than to prove "knowing". "Believes" is not in the wrong place in the sentence. The concept is perfectly simple. It is an offence to know or believe that one has information which might be of assistance and not to disclose it. The wording follows that which is contained already in an existing Act.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) suggested that "believes" was not even necessary in the clause. However, a person may have information which he may not actually know will be of material assistance, but he may believe that it will be. If we did not include the word "believes", a person might say that he did not have definite knowledge and thus avoid conviction. This experience is borne out in the operation of provisions relating to the disclosure of information about the accepting of bribes, which I have already illustrated.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady just now, in referring to the existing law, herself rightly attached the alternative "know or believe" to the question of the information being of use in securing a conviction. My only point is that that is where it should be in this legislation.

Dr. Summerskill: I think that everybody who reads this first sentence will appreciate exactly what it means, though I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is a stickler for accuracy in drafting. But we are all discussing the same thing as it is written into the clause.
I assure the House that the Attorney-General's consent will be required before proceedings can be taken for an offence under the new clause. This is covered by Government Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 to Schedule 3. I hope that that reassures the many hon. Members who have conjured up hypothetical situations.
We have had some discussion of what would be a reasonable excuse. Here again, in most cases one would not expect to get that far, because the Attorney-General would have to agree to proceedings.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I have not studied Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, but, if I understand the Minister correctly, this would then become a discretionary matter in the hands of the Attorney-General. By what criteria would he operate?

Dr. Summerskill: tie would operate by the criteria that he uses in any prosecution. This is a safeguard against many situations that worry my hon. Friends.

Mr. Stainton: I am sorry to insist on this, but, although not a lawyer, I am concerned about this situation. If discretion is to do with facts or the law or the interpretation thereof, which is what the fiat of the Attorney-General is all about in the generality of the law as it stands, that is one thing; but if it is to do with discretion in terms of consequences, as described by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), in terms of fear and attack upon parties, which must cross his mind when he makes his decision, that is an entirely different area.

Dr. Summerskill: I can only say that the Attorney-General's consent will be


needed before any proceedings can be taken in respect of an offence committed under the new clause. After all, this is not a unique situation for the Attorney-General. This assurance was in fact requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not a fact that, when the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1965 drew up what has become Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, it positively recommended that the approval, it said, of the DPP should be sought, and that that is what the Act provided should be required? Is not the approval of either the DPP or the Attorney-General a common feature in what one might call security-type offences, where there may be considerations relating to the desirability of prosecuting someone for an offence, even when there is evidence for it?

Dr. Summerskill: It is a safeguard against vexatious proceedings, which is what was disturbing my hon. Friends. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West, who kindly told me that he would have to leave, raised several points on this matter. Under both the Government's new clause and my hon. Friend's new clause it would be an offence not to disclose information about a forthcoming terrorist offence, but the difference is that my hon. Friend's clause envisages one knowing that the offence is to occur whereas the Government's new clause is related to information which, if given to the authorities, might prevent an incident.
One can never know whether a future event will take place—it is an academic point, to some extent—but it would not be enough simply to confine the offence to a case in which one had absolute certainty that an incident would occur. No one is suggesting that proceedings will be brought where the information was about something quite imaginary or where it would have been of no assistance. Here again, the Attorney-General's discretion will act as a safeguard.
However, I appreciate, in the general atmosphere of this debate, that, although many hon. Members opposite give full support to the Government's new clause, many of my hon. Friends prefer the other

new clause and that some would say "A plague on both." I therefore assure the House that the Government will look at both the new clauses between now and the next stage of the Bill in the House of Lords to see whether a compromise can be reached.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister be kind enough to refer to the problem attaching to the expression "to a constable", which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) as well as myself?

Dr. Summerskill: I am advised that the confidential telephone in Northern Ireland terminates in a police station, so a person using it is disclosing information "to a constable".

Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady again, but surely if a person in this situation, being in considerable fear, went, for example, to a Member of Parliament—

Mr. Beith: Or to the Army.

Mr. Powell: —or to any other person in a position of responsibility who he thought would be reasonably likely to pass the information on, surely that would be a course of action upon which action for an offence ought not to be based.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, that could classify as a reasonable excuse. If he had made an attempt to pass the information on, he could plead the failure of the intermediary as a reasonable excuse.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am in some difficulty in knowing whether the Minister is giving way or whether she has concluded her speech. Is she giving way?

Dr. Summerskill: I finished my remarks, having given that undertaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady has replied. The Question is—

Mr. Whitelaw: Just before the Question is put, I would apologise for not having been here throughout the debate, but I had a most important engagement elsewhere. I therefore speak with some diffidence, but I have heard some of the points at the end of the debate.
I think that the House would be grateful if the Government would consider their new clause carefully. We certainly


support its principle and if there is a Division, we will support the Government. However, we also have the right to point out that the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the phrase "knows or believes" is important and should be considered. Also, from my own experience in Northern Ireland, I know that the words "to a constable" have considerable significance.
This is a genuine difficulty which should be carefully considered. If the Government, while adhering to the principle of the new clause, would look at these points again, perhaps that would be the best way to proceed. Otherwise, if there is a Division, we will support the Government.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The Minister mentioned the safeguards in regard to proceedings, but did not say anything about the rôle of the police, which would be of great importance. If someone is arrested against whom there is concrete evidence, there would be considerable pressure on the police to think about the people with whom he had been in contact. They would have a responsibility to take some or all of them into custody because they had been in contact with the suspect and should therefore have believed, if they did not know, that that person might have committed an act of terrorism or some such thing.
Therefore, the rôle of the police is very important. My hon. Friend has said nothing about it, and so I am uncertain about the clause. I cannot support it unless we have more information.

Mr. Beith: At least some of us initially read the clause supposing that it would follow Clause 2 and, being in Part I, would not apply to Northern Ireland. It seems to me that the draftsmen thought in those terms. It is obvious from the points raised in the debate that it was not drafted with Northern Ireland in view, but the Minister has since nodded assent to the proposition that the clause applies to Northern Ireland.

As for the general issue of fear of the consequences of disclosure of information, if the defence of fear is accepted in one court it must be accepted in almost every court and in every instance in Northern Ireland.
The fact that the constable is the defined person by whom information may be received, rather than the Member of Parliament, the Army or anyone else, makes it clear that the clause was not drafted with Northern Ireland in mind.
If the hon. Lady remembers these matters when she reconsiders the clause, and if her noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State introduces another clause in another place, we shall get a lot further.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The clause is in principle valuable, but its history gives an indication of the difficulties suffered by people in charge of Bills when they try to be helpful and listen to arguments. The clause was not in the original Bill. It was persuasively suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in Committee, and was opposed by no one then. I thought that my hon. Friend's arguments were better than those in my brief, which were against accepting the clause.
Because I believe the clause is right in principle, I ask the House to support it. Our difficulty is in a sense a difficulty of our proceedings. The alternative is to be hopelessly rigid and gain nothing from discussion in the House, and I do not believe in that.
The clause has entered our proceedings at a fairly late stage, and needs detailed examination after this debate. I propose to carry out that examination. I ask the House to accept the clause in principle on the undertaking that I shall carefully study the Official Report of the debate and see what form the clause should take when it goes to another place.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 24.

Division No. 42.]
AYES
[6.44 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Armstrong, Ernest
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Bishop, E. S.
Buchan, Norman


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Bates, Alf
Boardman, H.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Beith, A. J.
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Campbell, Ian




Carlisle, Mark
John, Brynmor
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carson, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Judd, Frank
Rifkind, Malcolm


Conlan, Bernard
Kilfedder, James
Rooker, J. W.


Cope, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Corrie, John
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Crawford, Douglas
Lawson, Nigel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crawshaw, Richard
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shepherd, Colin


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Loveridge, John
Shersby, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Luard, Evan
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Dempsey, James
Luce, Richard
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sims, Roger


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCusker, H.
Small, William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Eadie, Alex
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Elliott, Sir William
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stainton, Keith


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stanbrook, Ivor


English, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marten, Neil
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Ford, Ben
Millan, Bruce
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Freud, Clement
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Tinn, James


George, Bruce
Molloy, William
Tomlinson, John


Golding, John
Molyneaux, James
Tomney, Frank


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gourlay, Harry
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moyle, Roland
Ward, Michael


Graham, Ted
Mudd, David
Watt, Hamish


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weatherill, Bernard


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Nelson, Anthony
Welsh, Andrew


Grist, Ian
Normanton, Tom
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Pollok)


Hannam, John
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Harper, Joseph
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Osborn, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hatton, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Havers, Sir Michael
Pardoe, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Henderson, Douglas
Park, George
Woodall, Alec


Hooson, Emlyn
Parkinson, Cecil
Woof, Robert


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hon George


Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest



Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. David Stoddart and


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Raison, Timothy





NOES


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Skinner, Dennis


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lamond, James
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Canavan, Dennis
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Wigley, Dafydd


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Lee, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)



Cryer, Bob
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Noble, Mike
Mr. Ian Mikardo and


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Parry, Robert
Mr. Tom Litterick.


Flannery, Martin
Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS

Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5, leave out '£400' and insert '£1,000'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and Amendment No. 6, in Clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out '£200' and insert '£500'.

Mr. Alison: The Opposition amendments seek increases in penalties on a summary conviction in a proportion which corresponds more closely to what we feel is the seriousness of the offence—first in respect of the offence of association with proscribed organisations, in Clause 1, and secondly, the offence of what one might describe as the explicit or brazen flaunting of support for a proscribed organisation, as it is defined in Clause 2.
It is difficult to know just the right scale that one should seek to lay down for penalties on a summary conviction. However, we believe that the sums set out in our amendments show that we have erred on the side of restraint and moderation. After all, we are dealing with people and activities which are, as it were, in the shallows or on the foothills of lethal terrorism and violence. In many cases there is no real or meaningful break or division in purpose or intention between the sort of activities in which people engage and with which they can be charged under Clauses 1 and 2, and the full range of horrors involved in contemporary violence and terrorism. This is a seamless garment in the case of the intention of many of these people.
One thinks of the analogy of the Brownshirts in the early days of Hitler, before he was Chancellor, and the way they used to run around with Nazi flags, breaking windows, and so on. There is nothing between that and the full horror and panoply of what they stand for.
It is for this reason that we think that, certainly on the summary conviction penalties, the increase should be in proportion to the inherent seriousness of the offence.
Given that the maximum fine on a summary conviction can rise as high as

£1,000, it is very reasonable that this group of offences, particularly those under Clauses 1 and 2 for which we have sought increases in penalty, should admit of the fullest scale of fine which is practicable.
In the first debate in Standing Committee on 9th December, the Under-Secretary made it quite clear that the maximum fine on summary conviction can exceed the normal £400 in a limited number of instances. She gave an instance of which I should like to remind the House. She said,
where the speed of summary proceedings is essential for effective enforcement as in the case of certain offences committed by the owners or masters of foreign vessels, particularly in connection with oil pollution."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9th December 1975; c. 24.]
It seems ludicrous that it should be possible for the offence of pollution of the sea by the master of an oil tanker to admit of the highest possible range of fine on summary conviction, whereas the hon. Lady is still standing firm in not letting the penalties on summary conviction under Clauses 1 and 2 to rise higher than £400 and £200. It is quite unsatisfactory.
It is rather like the eighteenth century precedent of hanging people for sheep stealing. In this case the oil pollution offence, which attracts the highest remedy, is equivalent to sheep stealing. However, perversely, in the eighteenth century people were hanged for sheep stealing and also for murder. In this case, the equivalent of sheep stealing, polluting the sea with oil, carries the highest possible fine on summary conviction, but being involved in the instigation or propagation of, or participation in, proscribed organisations or flaunting activities concerned therewith, and so on, still attracts the minimum fine.
It is quite out of proportion. The hon. Lady is doing nothing in the Government amendments except introducing an element of uniformity with the penalties applicable under Clauses 1 and 2. I hope that the hon. Lady will exhibit the flexibility that her right hon. Friend manifested in his concluding words on new Clause 3. I hope that she will reconsider whether she should not use the precedent already set for £1,000 on summary conviction, and include the two ranges of fine in Clauses 1 and 2 that we have suggested—namely, £1,000 in Clause 1 and £500 in Clause 2.
I ask the hon. Lady to give sympathetic consideration to our amendments. I do not think that she has gone far enough in introducing the element of uniformity that appears in her pair of amendments.

7.0 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: As I undertook in Committee, we have carefully considered the arguments that were then put forward on fines, and particularly the arguments in favour of a heavier financial penalty on summary conviction of these offences. However, we feel that the general level of fines and penalties in the Bill accurately reflects the gravity that we wish to attach to each offence, bearing in mind that it is only penalties on summary conviction which are involved and that they are maximum penalties. The normal maximum fine which can be imposed by a magistrate in England and Wales is £400. Furthermore, we believe it right that the levels of the penalties for offences under the Bill should apply uniformly throughout Great Britain. We do not believe that there is a strong argument for making an exception in this Bill.
It would always be possible, if a heavier penalty were considered appropriate, for a case to be tried on indictment. In such circumstances the maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. There is a review of maximum penalties which is periodically undertaken.
Ideally we should not alter penalties in individual Bills, as is being proposed, but increase them all at the same time in a measure such as the Criminal Justice Act 1967. In our amendment it is proposed to increase the maximum penalty in Clause 2 to six months' imprisonment or a fine of £400, or both, instead of the present levels of three months' imprisonment or a fine of £200, or both.
I accept that there is a good deal of feeling that penalties for these offences should be severe. We were content that the level was right in Clause 2, but in view of the anxieties expressed in Committee we agreed that the penalty should be the same on summary conviction as for an offence under Clause 1. As regards Amendment No. 6, the Government amendment will double the maximum

penalty that now exists in Clause 2. On reflection since Committee, we have decided to provide that an offence under Clause 2 should be dealt with as seriously as an offence under Clause 1, and that the penalties on summary conviction should be comparable. In any case, we wish to keep the penalty within the normal limits of the powers of the magistrates' courts—namely, £400.
I remind the House that it is possible for a heavier penalty to be imposed if it is thought appropriate that a case should be tried on indictment. In those circumstances, the maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

Mr. Carlisle: Although I see the force of the hon. Lady's argument that we should have consistent maxima in all cases I am conscious, having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), of how the fines for oil pollution cases came on to the statute book. They did so against the advice of the Home Office at the time. The matter was carried by a vote of the House against the Government. Since that time we have had the Report of the James Committee. The Committee recommended that in general maximum fines should be increased from £400 to £1,000. If that is so, and if we are bringing in new legislation that is post-James is there not an argument for putting in the new maximum that was recommended by the James Committee? That would seem to be more consistent with our inflationary days than the maximum of £400.
I realise that I may be speaking as a lone voice, but Governments have persistently said that they are anti short-term imprisonment. However, they continue to provide powers which allow magistrates to send people to prison for periods up to six months. Would it not be better to have higher fines available to magistrates and to provide the power of imprisonment only when the case is tried by the higher court? For offences under Clause 1 the prosecution can always elect to take the proceedings to the higher court if it considers that they are of a gravity which requires imprisonment.
With respect, I am not suggesting that the present Government are alone in the fault I have described. If we say that we are against the idea of short terms of


imprisonment we are unwise to continue to legislate so as to provide maxima of three months' and six months' imprisonment in magistrates' courts when there is always the alternative of going to the higher court if the case is considered to be of sufficient gravity.

Mr. Powell: Two separate issues are raised by this group of amendments. The first issue is whether the penalties for membership of a proscribed organisation should be twice as much as those for displaying support for such an organisation. That is how matters have stood in the Bill hitherto. It is clear that the Government are right to have decided that the penalty for displaying support should be at least as high as the penalty for membership. We all know that the offence of membership is particularly difficult to bring home to the offender whereas the offence of displaying support is not only a public acknowledgement of membership or support but a positive and deliberate flaunting of that support. It is a flaunting which is done to create hostility and to lead, amongst other things, to public disorder.
If there were to be a proper ratio between the penalties for these two offences and if they were not to be the same, one would be inclined to say that the penalties under Clause 2 should be higher than those under Clause 1. At any rate, we have now rightly brought the penalties into line. I am sure that those who wrote the brief for the hon. Lady were unnecessarily grudging. They could have given themselves much more enthusiastic credit for what they are doing.
The second issue that this group of amendments raises is whether the penalties that we have now enacted are adequate. The hon. Lady reminded the House that this scale of penalty was most recently fixed in 1967. It is important that the Government should understand the natural irritation which is caused to the public by the realisation that penalties are still being imposed at the same levels after eight to nine years of inflation at the level we have experienced. By simply passing Clause 1 in the same form as it was passed a year ago we are reducing the penalty by one-quarter.
I am not suggesting that we should go through the statute book every year and

upgrade the penalties by the percentage of inflation during the intervening 12 months. That is not a form of escalation to which I should subscribe. But we are making new legislation. The House deliberately decided not to enable the original Bill to be renewed; it did so in order that there might be the opportunity by new legislation to reconsider the matter after a year. Therefore, it is natural that those looking at the Bill should take offence at penalties which, being imposed for these offences in 1976, conform to the 1967 general scale and are lower in real terms than the House decided were appropriate a year ago. The Government have made a mistake by insisting on moving on the general front or not at all, and moving many years too late in a period of high inflation. There is a strong case, if not for the figure of £1,000 proposed in Amendment No. 1, at any rate for a figure substantially higher than that which appears in the Bill.

Mr. Lawrence: I support all the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and as advanced in Committee. I am happy that the Government have considered those arguments, but unhappy that they have decided to reject the strength of them.
I should like to advance one further argument for the raising of the fine. There seems no reason in law why this House shall not decide that, unusually for magistrates' courts offences, the maximum fine should be £1,000. The fact that there is a rule which is normally followed is neither here nor there, provided that there is some reason for thinking that these offences are unusual.
The Under-Secretary said that there was no justification for making these offences an exception. I beg leave to differ. When dealing with terrorist offences, the public expect an exception to be made by virtue of their seriousness. Furthermore, there is some practical advantage. There is reason to suppose that the IRA feels most offended when its pocket is attacked. There are strong reasons for taking away any financial support being received by the IRA from any source.
Subsection (7) provides the power of forfeiture, but that is subject to the amount of money which can be found at


the time to have resulted from the commission of the offence set out in Clause 1. I suspect that in reality, although a sum of money may have been raised by virtue of these collections which are offences under Clause 1, when the persons concerned are arrested there will be precious little left to be seized for forfeiture. Therefore, we can hit the IRA and stop it raising vast sums of money by taking that money away when it is found and when the persons concerned are found to be guilty of the offence.
That can best be achieved by raising the maximum fine. If in a public house in some part of the country there has been a collection directly or indirectly in support of the IRA, the magistrate should be able to say to the person found guilty of the offence, "I will fine you £1,000". That will hit the IRA where it hurts. There is no point in being considerate and saying that the ordinary level of fines for offences which come before a magistrate's court is £400 and that there is no reason for making an exception. There is every reason for making an exception, and making it sting and hurt as hard as we can.
7.15 p.m.
If one adds to that the persuasive argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South, that there is no reasonable case for deliberately reducing the efficacy of the fine from what was imposed a year ago—£400 then is now worth 25 per cent. less—I suggest that this is a reasonable opportunity to increase it.
The Minister said that this matter can be reviewed when the penalties are next reviewed. When will the penalties next be reviewed? If they are to be reviewed in two, three, four or five years, we are wasting this opportunity of doing something of which the IRA will disapprove because it will take away the money which is raised when offences of this kind are committed and which goes to buy weapons with which to take the lives of our soldiers and the people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am dismayed by the principle on which the Minister has approached the amendment. It seems offensive to the concept of punishment and

justice that, rather than get an appropriate penalty right, we should suit some administrative convenience whereby all maximum penalties are raised identically at the same time. The absurdity of that argument is that offences do not necessarily maintain their equivalent gravity. Whereas pollution of the sea enlarges as an offence with the advent of the large tanker, so other penalties which were once important—for example, sheep stealing—now become relatively trivial. Therefore, it is a particularly bad concept to say that punishment and the fixing of penalties should be organised to suit the convenience of raising all penalties at the same time and keeping them equal.
I conceive that there is a hidden convenience. There is a myth or fiction that penalties are automatically translatable into terms of imprisonment if fines are not paid. There is a concept that if a person is fined so much and does not pay, he serves three months' imprisonment if he is fined £400 and does not pay, he serves six months' imprisonment; and if he is fined £800 and does not pay, he serves 18 months' imprisonment, or whatever the formula may be.
I have a dreadful feeling that resistance to the amendment is based on administrative convenience, not on any real attempt to assess the gravity of the offences.
It is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for these offences to be treated summarily. When dealing with offences as grave as the deliberate flaunting of belonging to a proscribed organisation, it is right that the criteria should not he related to any other act—careless driving, or anything else. We should get the penalties right in this instance.
Since the whole Bill is framed to suit the structure of the courts of England, not the courts of Scotland, I find it additionally offensive that administrative habit is the generating argument for resisting the amendment.

Dr. Summerskill: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) on the James Report. I appreciate his argument that we should consider that Report but, on the other hand, it would not be wise to anticipate new legislation based on a


Report concerning the general level of fines involving alterations of maxima in a Bill or Bills to be introduced—in other words, for there to be a piecemeal approach to the problem.
I hope that I did not mislead the House when I referred to the possibility of heavier penalties for cases tried on indictment. Clause 2 creates summary offences, but by Clause 1 it is possible for cases tried on indictment to attract unlimited fines. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said that in his opinion most of these offences should be tried on indictment.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Minister has moved a long way to meet us and we welcome her approach. I still hope that she will consider some of the arguments put to her by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison).
We tabled our amendments so that we would have the opportunity to discuss penalties. I repeat that the hon. Lady has gone some way to meet us by tabling Government proposals. The Government often take refuge in the argument that a general review is about to begin. It is then asked "When will that review take place and, when it does, will it produce results?" Sometimes one feels that it is time that such a review produces results.
I appreciate that the hon. Lady is not responsible for a general review and must seek to tie the penalties in this Bill into the present set-up. However, there is a strong feeling that a general review should produce results which are somewhat overdue.
Having had a useful debate and having been given some concessions, I suggest to my hon. Friend that we should not press our proposals.

Mr. Alison: I beg to ask leave to withdrew the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 25, leave out 'then' and insert 'he became a member'.
The effect of this amendment is to replace the words "since then" in Clause 1(6) with the words
since he became a member".
The sole purpose of the amendment is to clarify doubts which some Members felt about the effect of the words "since then". There is no change of substance involved. The doubts expressed were whether the words "since then" referred to the period since a person had joined an organisation or to the period since the organisation had been proscribed. The amendment makes it absolutely clear that a person can invoke the defence in subsection (6) if he can show that he became a member when it was not proscribed and that since he became a member he has not taken part in any of the organisations activities.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Lady and the Home Department for having solved the conundrum that plagued me as the Bill was drafted. I have no objection to her complaining about my pernickertiness in drafting so long as she is so quick to take the points I make.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

DISPLAY OF SUPPORT IN PUBLIC FOR A PROSCRIBED ORGANISATION

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 43, leave out '£200' and insert '£400'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 3

EXCLUSION ORDERS: GENERAL

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 10, leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may also take the following amendments:

No. 10, in page 3, line 19, leave out Clause 4.

No. 18, in page 4, line 6, leave out Clause 5.

No. 21, in page 4, line 23, leave out Clause 6.

No. 27, in page 5, line 19, leave out Clause 7.

No. 29, in page 5, line 29, leave out Clause 8.

No. 33, in Clause 9, in page 6, leave out line 17.

No. 37, in Clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 8 and 9.

No. 39, in page 7, line 13, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

No. 41, in page 7, leave out lines 24 to 27.

No. 42, in page 7, leave out lines 31 to 33.

No. 43, in Clause 11, page 7, leave out lines 39 and 40.

No. 44, in page 8, line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Bennett: The intention was that I was to play a sweeping role in this debate but, having looked round the Chamber, I see that I am to be regarded as almost the only sweeper.
This group of amendments deals with the principle of the exclusion order. Many of us have been concerned about the concept of such orders, particularly following the removal of internment in Northern Ireland and the feeling that there is still a need for some judicial process.
I am concerned about the numbers involved in this process. When the legislation was introduced over a year ago it was clear that the numbers were to be small, but as time has elapsed the numbers have grown and they are still growing. The procedure does not appear to lead to a reduction in numbers. It would appear that we must wait until such time as it is felt that there is no longer a need to provide in legislation for any substantial reduction in the number of orders. The occasional order is appealed against and sometimes that appeal is successful, but the basic number of orders in existence is steadily growing. Many hon. Members are concerned that they will grow into a mountain.
If the number of orders increases too greatly, I believe that it will become a matter of concern in English communities, as did the question of internment in earlier days. Indeed, the process may well have the reverse effect from that intended when originally introduced in that it may turn the community against

the Government rather than assist their efforts.
We are also concerned lest two levels of evidence are to be involved—one requiring conviction in the courts and another involving a level of evidence sufficient for an exclusion order to be made. We should ensure that evidence is heard in the courts rather than that there should be extra powers based on less positive evidence but still leading to an exclusion order.
We must ask certain questions. Is the present set-up producing the effect we want? Is it intended to keep one or two people out of the country, or to scare the whole Irish community? In one or two cases that have come to light the latter rather than the former concept appears to be the intention. There are many reasons for questioning exclusion orders. I hope that we shall receive some explanation from the Minister about how we are to get rid of them. I hope that we shall be told how people who have been excluded for a certain period can go about obtaining revocation of an order. This is an important matter for people who have been uprooted from their homes and who wonder whether they will ever have the opportunity to return.
There is disquiet about exclusion orders. They have now existed for a year and they appear to be needed even beyond that time. I hope that the Government will seriously consider dropping the provisions relating to exclusion orders.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I wish to deal with the subject of exclusion orders because it cannot be denied that as the legislation stands it involves a serious infringement of civil liberties. That point was clearly made in Committee. I was not a member of the Committee and I was surprised that no amendments were moved to protect civil liberties. It is on the basis of protecting the civil liberties of the British people that I make my remarks about exclusion orders.
I speak in terms of the experience of two Bristolians, one of whom was a constituent of mine, who were served with exclusion orders. I have made the point before, but it is worth repeating. At no stage of the proceedings leading to the serving of the orders were they


given any indication of the evidence against them. Neither their families nor their Members of Parliament were given any information about the evidence.
There is an amendment for discussion later which seeks to ensure that individuals who are taken into custody receive legal representation. Under the exclusion order procedure, no lawyer can get any information to help him prepare a defence statement. I was rightly inundated with telephone calls from a solicitor in Bristol who had taken up the case of my constituent. His request was quite simple. He wanted to prepare a defence statement to help his client—and I take it that that is the first duty of a legal representative—but the police would not give him any information about the evidence against the man. I contacted the Home Office which refused to give me any information.
I am told that the adviser who visited the men in prison told them that he had no indication of the evidence against them either. Imagine that! The man who had to advise the Home Secretary whether these men should be taken away from their wives and families and sent back to Ireland apparently had no idea of the evidence against them. I ask the lawyers in the House how they would proceed in this kind of situation.
My right hon. Friend has said that this is an executive order and that he takes the decisions. However, I understand that the words "Secretary of State" in the Bill mean any Secretary of State. If this sort of procedure was happening in other countries, whether Fascist Chile or the Soviet Union, hon. Members would not be reticent about putting down Early-Day Motions, and I am sure that the Home Secretary would support them. Hon. Members would protest at families being split up in this way and at Members of Parliament being unable to get an indication of the evidence against their constituents.
This House should be the watchdog of civil liberties, not the Home Secretary's poodle. I am concerned about the House passing legislation which gives these incredible Dowers to the Home Secretary. He can exclude people from this country and send them back to Ireland and we do not know whether they and their families will ever be reunited. Hon.

Members who feel this situation can be passed over lightly should come to Bristol and talk to the wives of the men served with exclusion orders and explain to their families why their fathers have been sent out of the country.
A number of hon. Friends and myself are concerned about this legislation. If there is evidence that people have been, or are likely to be, involved in acts of terrorism, they should be brought before the courts and, if they are found guilty, the full penalty of the law should be imposed upon them. To find someone guilty without telling him the evidence on which that decision is based is contrary to what we have always believed to be British justice.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have never pretended that I like these powers and I have always been anxious that they should be as temporary as possible, but I dislike still more the acts of terrorism to which we have been exposed and their consequences. While this House must safeguard civil liberties, it must also safeguard, as far as possible, the safety of the people of this country.
We face a difficult decision. I must tell the House and my hon. Friends that opposing the exclusion order provisions would be equivalent to opposing a very large part of the Bill, removing many of its teeth and leaving us, if recent circumstances arose again, with no effective measure in this area. I hope that we can move in the reasonably near future to a position in which we can dispense with these provisions.
In normal circumstances, I would not advocate them as desirable, but in the circumstances of the sustained acts of terrorism through which we have lived, I am sure that they are both necessary and desirable. I should not like anybody to be in any doubt that if he votes for removing the exclusion order provisions, he is voting to remove a very large part of the effectiveness of a Bill against terrorism.
Why can we not proceed by purely judicial procedures? Unfortunately, it is not possible. We can often convict people after crimes have been committed, but we are most anxious—and this is my duty—to prevent the acts of terrorism. That involves acting as we do. I believe that I have exercised these powers with a great deal of care and discretion.
There has been no question of my simply rubber-stamping orders. I gave the figures recently and they will not have changed much in the intervening period. I told hon. Members that I had made 69 exclusion orders. Notice of the making of an exclusion order has been served on 61 people. The other eight were not in this country. Fifty-six of them have been removed, 39 to Northern Ireland and 17 to the Irish Republic. Sixteen of the 61 made representations objecting to the orders, and in five of those 16 cases the orders were revoked after being referred to the advisers. This shows that the advisers procedure and consideration by the Secretary of State are not meaningless. I have revoked orders in just over 30 per cent. of the cases referred to the advisers.
I was asked why the whole system could not be used openly with the evidence presented against an individual. When people are removed, they are not imprisoned. They are removed to another part of the country, or to the Republic of Ireland, wherever they originated. People who were born here or who have lived here for 20 years cannot be so removed. I do not like the process, but its dangers have to be balanced against the danger—not just the threat of danger but the actuality of danger—to which the British public have been subjected in the past few years.
It is not a case of removing people against whom cases can be sustained in a court of law. Of course that is a much better and much more satisfactory procedure. In a great many cases however, that can be done only after acts of terrorism have been committed in circumstances which are difficult to prove. In present circumstances it is my duty to be prepared to act, balancing considerations in a way which enables us to act on real suspicion but not necessarily on sustainable evidential proof in a legal sense.
I was asked why the proceedings before the advisers could not be conducted in a judicial way. That would be to confuse the object of the two procedures. Either there must be a fully judicial process or an executive process with responsibility resting upon the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) stated correctly

that another Secretary of State could always sign an order for the Home Secretary. That does not mean that these matters are tossed around Whitehall. I think there may have been two cases in which orders have been signed by other Secretaries of State because I have been away. However, in each case the matter has been looked at most carefully by my advisers before signing and by myself on return. Every exclusion order case has received my careful individual attention. As for the advisers procedure, the fact that five of the orders have been revoked is in itself a strong indication that this is not a useless and ineffective whitewashing procedure.
I was asked why people cannot be told the charges against them. Obviously that cannot be done without endangering our sources of information. We all know the sort of conspiracies which have confronted us. One of the most vital factors for anyone trying to preserve the safety of people is to safeguard the sources of information.
Of the two advisers let me say that one prefers to see the man first, to hear what he has to say and to form a view about him, contrasting it afterwards with the case against the man. The other prefers to do it the other way around. They have both given very good, dedicated and balanced service. I would find it impossible to decide, if there were an instinct which was more favourable to the cause of the person against whom the order was laid, which of the two advisers would be likely to come up with the more favourable result. The two processes balance each other out. One does not result in a process any less favourable than the other.
Therefore, so long as we are subject to this terrorist threat, we have to continue with these powers, and if we took any other view, we should not be making an effective Bill. I certainly regard this part of the legislation as the most effective part and the removal of which would be the most damaging to the purposes of the Bill.
7.45 p.m.
One of my hon. Friends suggested that in some way this was not a measure for the safety of the British people, but a measure against the Irish community here. Nothing can be further from my intentions or from the effect of the legislation.


As a Member representing a Birmingham constituency, my great desire in dealing with the aftermath of the Birmingham bombings, which were the worst we have had to suffer and potentially the most dangerous to relations between the very large and valued Irish community in Birmingham and the indigenous community, has been to prevent these bestial acts from having any general effect upon those relations. In order to achieve that we must strike the right balance, and we have to strike a certain balance over a period of time.
It is extraordinary how short term are our reactions and our memories. When there is a dreadful incident, such as we have happily been free of for nearly two months, as a result, to some extent, of some very effective police work in December, great waves of emotion arise in this House and among the public. If we do not take care, large numbers of people get into the frame of mind in which they abandon all idea of justice and want to shoot almost anyone who might be involved.
After a number of weeks, memories fade and views swing the other way. People begin to think that the only important thing is to ensure that there is not too much executive power. My duty, and it is one of the most difficult I have ever had to discharge in a number of offices, is to try to hold a proper balance over a period of time between those two attitudes.
I believe that with all its difficulties and problems—and I should not like to see it a permanent part of our legislation—the Bill broadly achieves that objective. Without these provisions, it would be gravely weakened and unacceptably affected.

Mr. Litterick: My right hon. Friend has made a point about the Irish community and that is very germane. Will he say how many, if any, non-Irish people have been deported from one part of the British Isles to another under this legislation?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that I can. I am not sure of the relevance of the question. Probably—I am not quite sure—all those involved had some form of Southern or Northern Irish connection, otherwise they would not have been involved.
I remind my hon. Friend that we are here discussing a Bill to deal with Irish terrorism. Other forms of terrorism exist in the world and can arise. It is not a peculiarity of the Irish people that they produce terrorists. My hon. Friends below the Gangway have been extremely anxious that the Bill should be confined to Irish terrorism, and I have been asked in the course of the passage of both the previous Bill and this to give many assurances. Therefore, any construction based upon my hon. Friend's question would not be valid, and any suggestion that the legislation has led to a general anti-Irish feeling would be entirely misplaced.

Mr. Whitelaw: I rise to say briefly why I feel deeply and strongly that the House must support the Home Secretary in resisting the amendment. He rightly spoke of the need to preserve a balance and rightly stressed that the legislation was of a temporary nature, which is an extremely important safeguard.
On the question of balance, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) asked how one would give an answer to the families of people who had been subjected to exclusion orders. I accept that it is a difficult answer to give, but it would be much more difficult to explain to the families of people who had suffered from terrorists' actions in this country why the House was not taking every possible effective step against terrorism.
The House must take effective measures. Inevitably, from time to time they are distasteful measures. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I had to exercise considerable powers against terrorism, some of which were distasteful. No one in the position of Home Secretary or Secretary of State for Northern Ireland likes to exercise these powers. One does it not from pleasure but because one has a duty to protect the people against acts of terrorism. Measures taken against members of the Irish community who might be engaged in terrorism are a great safeguard for the remainder of the Irish community who are not engaged in terrorism in that they are thereby to some extent safeguarded against the undoubted reprisals which would come upon innocent members of the Irish community—as the vast majority


undoubtedly are—if we did not have such measures.
I wish to endorse what the Home Secretary said about the powers of the Secretary of State. From time to time, when I had power as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, other Secretaries of State signed orders on my behalf, but never without my accepting personal responsibility for the action taken. They might sign, but I took personal responsibility, because I was answerable to the House. Naturally and properly, I took that responsibility, as would any Home Secretary or Secretary of State.
I also endorse what the Home Secretary said about safeguarding sources of information. We have to preserve the right balance. It is proper that questions concerning the individual and civil liberties should be raised in the House, but, in the light of what we have had to endure from terrorism, the House has to be seen to be determined to take effective action.
To allow the amendments to the Bill would make it seem that the House was not in earnest and was not determined to take effective action. It would appear that we were passing a Bill which would not do the job necessary. Having set our minds to deal effectively with terrorism, we should not flinch at our first chance of doing so. That is no way to safeguard our people, which surely is the primary consideration.

Mr. Mikardo: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary devoted a substantial part of his speech to an account of how he had administered the provisions since they had been in operation and the scrupulous care he had taken to use them in such a way as to minimise their adverse effects and consequent encroachments upon civil liberty. I totally accept that part of his speech. Everyone, even its supporters, agrees that the legislation is obnoxious. The best anyone says of it is that it is a necessary evil. If we are to have this obnoxious legislation, I can think of no one I prefer to my right hon. Friend to administer it. But he is not a permanent fixture.
Although the Bill is temporary, such is the insecurity of man upon the earth that even in the Bill's temporary life we

cannot be sure that my right hon. Friend will be administering it for all its life. It is a poor reason for legislation to say that it is awful but at least the present Minister is doing a good job with it. I totally accept what my right hon. Friend said. I pay sincere tribute to him for the way in which he has administered the provisions. No one admires more than I my right hon. Friend's humanitarian and libertarian views, but I do not think that they are relevant to the amendment.
I turn to the main burden of the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). I have not before listened to a speech like that made by my right hon. Friend, but I have read one. I read in a Soviet journal a detailed account which purported to give a point by point answer to the "Gulag Archipelago" and which said exactly what my right hon. Friend said. He will no doubt be horrified to hear that, but he needs no assurance from me that I am not comparing him—or indeed the right hon. Gentleman—with the people who committed the atrocities referred to in the "Gulag Archipelago".
The point by point refutation in the Soviet Press of the accusations in the "Gulag Archipelago" were virtually indistinguishable from what my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman said. The same arguments were used. It is true that in the Soviet Union chaps are put in prison or in a psychiatric hospital whereas we do not do that. But we separate chaps from their wives and children and choke them out of their jobs. The pains felt by the victims referred to in "Gulag Archipelago" are imposed by the Bill upon some of our citizens.
8.0 p.m.
What is the point by point refutation of the "Gulag Archipelago" that no hon. Member accepts? It is as follows: "It is bad and we should like to proceed against these people by the processes of law, but they are enemies of the State." We call them "terrorists"—for "terrorist" read "enemy of the State", for "enemy of the State" read "terrorist". The refutation goes on: "They are enemies of the State and the first consideration must be to protect the people."
That is what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has just said. That is what was said in Pravda. We were told in its refutation: "Do not have sympathy with these people who are sent to the Gulag Archipelago; have sympathy with the potential victims of these enemies of the State. We should like to be able to proceed against these enemies by the due processes" and so on, and so on—we know it all. "The State must be protected because these people are ruthless"—we have heard those terms in the House today. The conclusion is: "The community must be protected and so we have to take powers different from any powers which have been taken before to deal with enemies of the State."
It is just a matter of which side one is on. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's terrorist is another man's enemy of the State. One man's protection of the community is another man's Gulag Archipelago. It depends on the way one looks at it. There is a great deal of subjectivity in all this.

Mr. Peter Rees: Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal) rose—

Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is rising to ask me whether I am trying to protect terrorists, the answer is that I am not, by any means. But I do not want us to start the beginnings of a process the end of which could well be the Gulag Archipelago.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is developing an extremely interesting line of argument, but so that we can appreciate its full sublety, will he tell us whether crimes of violence are as prevalent in the Soviet Union as they are in Ulster?

Mr. Mikardo: I have not the least idea. I have no statistics, and nor has the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think

that either of us could get them. I am trying to figure out the purport of his intervention. Is he saying "Good. The Soviet Union has done this. It has the Gulag Archipelago and it has got rid of crimes of violence and therefore we should have a Gulag Archipelago"? That is what it sounds like. Otherwise I cannot see sense in his intervention. Much as I deplore crimes of violence, I deplore the Gulag Archipelago more, and I hope that he does, too.

Mr. McCusker: The case being made of innocent workmen on the flimsiest evidence being wrenched from their families and sent to Ireland, North or South, would be substantially reinforced if it could be shown that when they got to Ireland they all settled down, got jobs, worked hard and found homes where they could be reunited with their families. But what do we find when we examine the activities of at least some of them? I have not examined all their cases, but I have examined the cases which have impinged on my constituency,
Among the people referred to by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) may be the one who, weeks after his return, was not only actively working in the Republican movement, but came into my constituency and in June 1975 made an oration over the grave of the only known IRA terrorist shot by the British Army during 1975 in the commission of a terrorist crime. He described that terrorist as having been killed on active service. That was all done during the period of the so-called IRA cease-fire. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if the family of that man were to ask me for an answer, I would say, "Look to your father and what he is doing in Ireland."

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 140.

Division No. 43.]
AYES
[8.7 p.m.


Bidwell, Sydney
Lamond, James
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Canavan, Dennis
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Wigley, Dafydd


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Litterick, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Mikardo, Ian



Corbett, Robin
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Cryer, Bob
Parry, Robert
Mr. Ron Thomas and


Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Andrew Bennett.


Flannery, Martin
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Alison, Michael
Harper, Joseph
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds E)


Archer, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Armstrong, Ernest
Henderson, Douglas
Reid, George


Ashton, Joe
Hopson, Emlyn
Rooker, J. W.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bales, Alf
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunter, Adam
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Bishop. E. S.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rowlands, Ted


Blaker, Peter
James, David
Sims, Roger


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Boardman, H.
John, Brynmor
Small, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Judd, Frank
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Kilfedder, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Buchan, Norman
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Campbell, Ian
Knight, Mrs Jill
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Carlisle, Mark
Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Carson, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cartwright, John
Lector, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McCartney, Hugh
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McCusker, H.
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Viggers, Peter


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dunn, James A.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Marks, Kenneth
Watt, Hamish


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Welsh, Andrew


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Bruce
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
White, James (Pollok)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Molyneaux, James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Evans, John (Newton)
Monro, Hector
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nelson, Anthony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Freud, Clement
Oakes, Gordon
Winterton, Nicholas


Golding, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Woodall, Alec


Goodhart, Philip
Pardoe, John
Woof, Robert


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Graham, Ted
Parkinson, Cecil



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grist, Ian
Penhaligon, David
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. David Stoddart.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 15, leave out 'or 5 below' and insert:
'(orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland) or 5 of this Act'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 4

ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS FROM GREAT BRITAIN

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 3, line 41, at end insert
'or
(c) is at the time subject to an order under section (orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland) of this Act'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 1, leave out 'Part of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It is proposed with this to take Government Amendments Nos. 22, 23, and 64, together with the following amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham):
No. 65, in Schedule 2, page 12, line 12, leave out:
'to which paragraph 5 below applies
and insert:
'exempted under paragraph 5 below'.
No. 66, in Schedule 2, page 12, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert:
'An order under section 5 of this Act shall be exempted for the purpose of paragraph 4(a) above where it'.

8.15 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: These amendments are designed to simplify the present pro-


visions respecting the service of notice of exclusion orders, and have the effect of placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to serve notice of the making of an exclusion order on any person who is within the United Kingdom, whether the exclusion order has the effect of excluding him from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom.
At present, the obligation on the Secretary of State to serve notice of the making of an exclusion order is qualified by the provisions of Part II of Schedule 2. These have the effect that an order made by the Home Secretary, whether excluding a citizen from Great Britain or a non-citizen from the United Kingdom, has to be served only on a person who is in Great Britain, and an order made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to be served on a person only if he is in Northern Ireland.
The basis for this has been that notice need only be served when the person concerned is in that part of the United Kingdom against which his activities are aimed, and that the practical difficulty of requiring the security forces in Northern Ireland to undertake the task of serving notice of exclusion orders made by the Home Secretary may amount to an unreasonable burden.
We have, however, since the Committee stage, reconsidered the whole question of the service of notice of exclusion orders in the light of the forceful arguments put forward then, particularly by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We accept his view that if a person is excluded from the United Kingdom as a whole, the exclusion order ought to be served on him wherever he is in the United Kingdom. We also accept that a person who is excluded from one part of the United Kingdom to another should be served with notice of the order, whichever part of the United Kingdom he is in—provided, of course, that he is in the United Kingdom."
We do not think that any obligation should rest upon the Secretary of State to serve an exclusion order on any person who is outside our jurisdiction, for example, in the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) appear to be unnecessary,

because one of the Government's amendments will have the effect of deleting the whole of Part II of Schedule 2.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the favourable consideration that she has given to the views put forward in Committee and, indeed, for writing to me on this subject between the Bill's two stages.
Virtue sometimes has its own reward, and one of the by-products of the Government's decision, which has been welcomed in the House today, to introduce into the Bill the principle of reciprocity has been that it has helped to clear up and simplify the unsatisfactory Schedule 2 by making it possible to eliminate Part II, which was not only obscure but which many of us thought involved substantial unfairnesses. The hon. Lady can feel that a considerable, though minor, improvement has been made to the Bill by the tidying up to which she has applied in her mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 4, line 3, leave out subsection (4).—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 5

ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED KING- DOM AND COLONIES FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 4, leave out line 7.

No. 20, in line 22, at end insert:
'(3) An order shall not be made under this section against a person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.'—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 6

RIGHT TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS ETC. TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 4, line 24, leave out
'subject to Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act'.
No. 23, in line 29, at end insert:
'(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not impose an obligation to take any steps to serve a notice on a person at a time when he is outside the United Kingdom.'—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Mr. Beith: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 4, line 29, at end insert—
'(c) set out the general reasons for the issue of the exclusion order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may take the following amendment: No. 26, in page 5, line 10, at end insert:
'at which he may be accompanied by a legal adviser if he so wishes'.

Mr. Beith: I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have selected for consideration with this amendment a related, though not identical, point about the procedure for the discussion of exclusion orders and about the presence of a legal adviser.
I deal first with Amendment No. 24. The House has just decided that exclusion orders, repugnant though they are to us all and unlike the normal pattern of British justice as they are, must be accepted as a necessary evil. That having been decided, however, we are not absolved from the need to ensure that the procedure is as fair and reasonable as possible, and we have just passed Government amendments which represent improvements on that procedure.
I look for quite specific improvements by this amendment. An important one is that the person upon whom an exclusion order is served should have some general indication of the reason for having that order served against him. It is difficult and sometimes dangerous to provide excluded persons with information which is so detailed that those from whom the information was obtained would be identified, with the result that their lives might be put at risk. However, it is fundamental to the principles of British justice that people should know what they are supposed to have done, are likely to do, or are liable to do. We enter new areas when we think of offences that people are liable to commit, but in this as much as in any other situation a person served with an exclusion order is entitled to a general statement of what the nature of the activities concerned are supposed to be. Therefore, some effort should be made to give this general indication, although we are aware of the difficulties involved.
However, there is a difficulty on the other side. If no indication is given of the basis for the exclusion order, how is

the person concerned to prepare representations to the Secretary of State against the order? What is he to say if he has the benefit of an interview with one of the Home Secretary's advisers? On what can he ground his defence? I hesitate to use the word "defence", because we have been instructed to avoid construing this as a trial or hearing. However, the person on whom an order is served needs to know in general terms what is alleged against him, and there must be something that could be stated when an order is issued.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will look favourably upon this amendment. I see it as sufficiently important to want to press it upon them and, indeed, to press it to a Division if it does not find favour with them.
As for the right of access to a legal adviser and other parts of the procedure, the Bill allows accused persons or persons on whom exclusion orders are served to appeal and to seek a personal interview with the Home Secretary's appointed advisers. There is some difficulty about defining the precise rôle of those advisers, and the Secretary of State has helped the House by describing the way in which that procedure is followed and the different ways in which his two advisers choose to carry out their duty. But we must remember that even if we make it clear that we are not erecting a trial, a hearing or an appeal, some of the difficulties in the procedure still apply to the person confronted with it. The ordinary person with no legal training or experience of being confronted with a situation in which he has to account for himself before someone of considerable authority and standing is at some disadvantage.
Without seeking to make a trial out of what is not a trial, I feel that it is desirable to have someone to assist such a person in presenting his case and to advise him about what would be helpful for him to say and what would not be helpful for him to say in that situation. I do not seek to challenge the Home Secretary's approach to the procedure by trying to reconstruct it or to make some second-rate form of appeal procedure which is defined differently in his mind. I am not sure what the definition is, but I think that the job of the adviser is to make an assessment of the credibility of the person against whom an exclusion


order is served and of what he says about his standing and to decide upon the appropriateness of the order.
I grant that that is a different exercise from a trial, a hearing, or a re-hearing of what the Home Secretary has determined. But it remains necessary for a person unfamiliar with proceedings of this kind if he feels that he needs it to have access to someone who can help him in matters of presentation and help him to avoid difficulties in proceedings which he does not understand.
It would not necessarily go against the express desire of the Home Secretary to retain an informal procedure to ensure that those who have to go through it have access to legal advice during that procedure. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will find favour as well.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has moved the amendment in a persuasive and very reasonable way. Indeed, our whole debate has been conducted in a similar tone. I should like to be able to accept both of the hon. Gentleman's amendments, but I do not think it would be right to do so and I shall explain briefly why I take that view.
Amendment No. 24 provides for the setting out of
the general reasons for the issue of the exclusion order".
I do not think that I can make any meaning out of going beyond what is contained in the Bill at present without coming up against the difficulty which I outlined in dealing with the last major amendment. In a general sense—the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted it to be fairly general—the matter is specified in Clause 4. I freely admit that it is very general. It says:
If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any person—

(a) is or has been concerned (whether in Great Britain or elsewhere) in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or
(b) is attempting or may attempt to enter Great Britain with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

That is firmly the position in the Bill and indeed, it has been the position for the past 15 months. I have not and

would not make an exclusion order without being satisfied on those grounds.
Therefore, those are the general grounds upon which an exclusion order is made. If there be any doubt about it, I shall make sure that these grounds are drawn to the attention of the people concerned so that they are in no doubt that they are regarded by me as being within one or other of these categories. Indeed, they will know in which category they belong, because one category concerns those people who are in this country and the other applies to those people who are trying to enter this country.
I believe that by attempting to move to a type of half-general position we would be at a half-way house which it would be extremely difficult to defend. Moreover, if we are more specific, we come up against the difficulty of safeguarding information. My view, based on experience, is that we could endanger sources of information and involve a risk to life.
We cannot have the best of both worlds. That is the difficulty. I cannot see a reasonable half-way house in which we could stop between what I admit is the very general provision in Section 4 of the old Act—Clause 4 of the Bill—and giving information which would go too far, indeed, so far as to endanger sources and thereby lives.
Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment, but I undertake that if there be any doubt, we shall make it clear to anyone against whom an exclusion order is signed in future that it is because of these grounds relating directly to my satisfaction that he
is or has been concerned … in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
Amendment No. 26 provides that a person
may be accompanied by a legal adviser if he so wishes".
Again, I am in difficulty about this matter. On Second Reading and during other debates on this subject I think the House accepted, though not without dissent, my view that this process cannot by its very nature be a judicial one. I make no bones about it. It is an executive process subject to certain limited safeguards. It is a procedure which I should justify only under the threat with which we have had to live for the past few years.
I do not believe that there is any halfway house between getting the best of both worlds so that we have a quasi-judicial, quasi-executive procedure. If we try to do that, we shall fail and get into a hopeless position. If the right of legal representation is automatically conferred at such proceedings, I am sure that the next step will be that we shall be asked to keep records and to have a stenographer making a formal record of everything that happens. We are then moving to the borderline of a judicial procedure.
In the first place, there is no question of someone who goes before an adviser being denied the right to have consultations with and advice from his solicitor before he sees the adviser. That has been the practice and I will certainly ensure that it is the practice in future. As far as I know it always has been the practice in the past where the person against whom the order is served has a legal adviser and wishes to consult him.
I would also be prepared to say that, when the adviser takes the view that it is reasonable in the circumstances, the person should be accompanied by someone, by a legal adviser or a friend or relation if that is thought appropriate. But I must hold the position that in certain cases which could be very difficult and sensitive the question must be whether the adviser, knowing what he has to deal with, thinks that that is a reasonable procedure.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my asking him to be a little clearer or to repeat what he said a sentence or two back. In drafting the amendment as I did, I was conscious of the alternative possibility of some other person accompanying the person concerned. Indeed, as I said earlier. I was not seeking to create a trial but to enable him to have the benefit of some assistance. If the right hon. Gentleman would clarify or repeat that, in many circumstances which he did not define, he would make this possible, that would help me.

Mr. Jenkins: What I will say is that I am not prepared to accept a blanket provision that in all cases there is a right to legal representation. That moves towards a quasi-judicial procedure which

this is not, should not be and in my view cannot be without undermining its whole purpose. What I am prepared to say and what I tried to say is that in many cases the adviser might be content that the person should be accompanied by someone else, whether a legal adviser, a friend or a relation, according to the view of the individual and of the adviser. That would be reasonable in many cases, but I could not accept it as being a statutory right, because there might be cases in which it would be inappropriate.
I should like to take this oportunity of correcting information that I gave in a discussion of a previous amendment. I accepted the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), which was true as far as it went, that there was, in the early stages of the operation of the first Act, a difference in the procedure adopted by the two advisers. One saw the case first, before the interview, and the other did not. The one who did not see it first at that stage was anxious not to let anything slip in discussion which might give the man who was to be excluded a lead as to who had informed against him, or whatever the case may be, and he wanted to approach the interview with an open mind. However, after he had had experience of doing this, he decided that, although this had not been an unfair practice—in my view also it had not—it was probably better to adopt the practice of the other adviser and that he should see the case against the man before the interview. They both now follow the same practice.

Mr. Thorne: I am trying to follow what my right hon. Friend has said. Clause 6 refers to the setting out of the rights afforded to the person concerned "by this section ". I assume that to mean Clause 6. Subsection (2) sets out what some of those rights are and refers to the serving of a notice and to his ability to make representations in writing to the Secretary of State.
I should have thought that anyone served with a notice would be much more able to fulfil the requirements of subsection (2)(a) in his own defence if he were provided, as the amendment suggests, with the general reasons for the issue of the order. Despite what the Secretary of State said, the amendment has


the value of providing for someone an additional defence, which will tend to preserve his individual liberty in difficult circumstances and against a background of difficult legislation.
Amendment No. 26, dealing with the presence of a legal adviser, would help the individual to preserve his rights. I appeal to my right hon. Friend on that basis. In his original statement when we first discussed the Bill, he referred to the Draconian measures he was taking in the Bill. I believe that he was sincere in expressing regret at being forced to introduce powers which invaded the liberty of the individual. I ask him to accept the amendments.

Mr. Mikardo: I also ask my right hon. Friend to accept the amendments. His case against them was pretty thin.
On Amendment No. 24 my right hon. Friend said that the House would understand—and we shall—why it was impossible for a chap to be told in full what was alleged against him, because sources must be protected. But I do not understand why, because one cannot tell him everything, one cannot tell him anything. That is almost an argument reductio ad absurdum, and is not up to my right hon. Friend's usual standard.
One of the first hallmarks of a totalitarian society, one in which the machinery of law does not protect the liberty of the individual against the executive, is that it is possible to take action against people without telling them why. As far as I know, this will be the first time in peacetime that we have empowered a Minister to take action against a person without giving him the least inkling of the reason, and it is action that separates him from his wife, his kids and his job.
I turn to Amendment No. 26. My right hon. Friend said that a person should not be accompanied by a solicitor, because then the process would turn into a trial. That will not do. The majority of solicitors in the House, if not all, would tell my right hon. Friend that attendance at trials represents a small part of their work. For example, a man will often take a solicitor along when attending to business negotiations, and for very good reasons. It is a laughable idea that, because a solicitor is present, the trial process is started. A trial is

created if there is a judge, a charge sheet, a prosecution, a defence and evidence. In the circumstances covered by the Bill, there could never be a trial, because there is no charge and there is no evidence.
No doubt some of the people against whom action is taken under this provision are hard-boiled cookies who can take care of themselves. But many will be terrified by the procedure. Many innocent people have been involved—presumably if they had not been innocent exclusion orders would have been made. Such people have probably never before been dealt with by the long and powerful arm of the State. They could be absolutely terrified of what was happening to them. There they are, alone, with all the high-powered apparatus ranged against them, and a very competent, clever and experienced adviser talking to them, apart from all the apparatus of the police, and they are not allowed to have even a mate with them, let alone a solicitor or anyone else.
This is weighting the scales much too heavily on one side. I think that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made his case, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not really answer it.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I have great sympathy with both of the amendments. However, my concern is that if we were to carry the first amendment I feel sure, not only in the light of what the Secretary of State has said but in the light of what one might expect without his having said it, the notification to the subject of the order would simply be in terms of Clause 5(1) of the Bill, and the recipient would be no better informed than he is now.
I am rather surprised, if it is the case now, that the recipient is served with an order which does not draw attention to the wording of the section under which it is made. I hope that that is not happening. But I fear that if the amendment were to be carried we would not add anything to the information that he is given.
I seem to remember that during the war there was a famous case about the serving of an order under Regulation 18B in which the court finally held that reasons for the making of the order did


not have to be stated, but one of the judges trying the case made a very fervent statement of his belief that it was totally contrary to the principles of English justice, even in the conditions of the war and the context of Regulation 18B, that reasons should not have to be stated to some extent or other.
I would incline, regretfully, to not voting for the amendment. However, I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Secretary of State about something very much related to it. If the subject of the order is not to be informed of the reasons in the mind of the Secretary of State and of the adviser, I think that it is all the more important that, as a matter of administrative procedure within the Home Office, the reasons which have compelled the adviser and the Secretary of State to decide to make the order should be set down in the dossier.
As I have previously said to the Secretary of State, the British are sloppy decision-takers. Unlike the French, they do not put all the facts into one dossier so that people may know what has been taken into account and what has not. For all I know, and for all any of us will ever know, it may be that the British are acting totally contrary to their character in these cases and setting down the secret reasons very carefully—but I suspect not.
I ask the Secretary of State to look at that point and to ensure that when the records are finally opened up in 50 years' time or 100 years' time, even on these cases, when historians look at them they at least can see that, right or wrong, the reasons were clear in the minds of those who took the decisions. This would be at the very least a useful mental discipline and some safeguard—though they will not know it—for the people who are the subjects of the orders.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the two amendments. In supporting them I should like to make one or two brief points.
Under Clause 4(1) the Secretary of State may issue an exclusion order if he is satisfied that any person

is or has been concerned (whether in Great Britain or elsewhere) in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Presumably there are a number of documents which indicate certainly likely happenings and "evidence"—I use that word in inverted commas—which the Secretary of State has to examine before being satisfied. I take it that those documents are typed by a young woman or man—I suppose it may be a man now that we have the Sex Discrimination Act—in the police station. She or he will know all about the case. A number of police officers will know all about it as well as some Home Office officials.
My right hon. Friend tells me that the assessor has now decided to consider the evidence before he sees the individual who is faced with an exclusion order. That is a much better system than the one which I understand operated in the two cases about which I have spoken. In those cases the assessor had not seen the evidence. When he saw the individuals concerned there was a general conversation.
It has been suggested that one of the Bristolians who had exclusion orders made against them engaged in certain activities when he reached Northern Ireland. I understood that in both cases the individuals concerned were excluded to Southern Ireland, but it is suggested that in one case there were certain activities in Northern Ireland. As a non-lawyer it seems strange that we have a situation in which the Home Secretary is satisfied that certain individuals have been concerned in the
commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism
and excludes them to the North or South of Ireland, leaving them to go about whatever business they may have. Presumably, some of them have jobs and live part of the normal life of the community. That is strange if there is sufficient evidence to satisfy my right hon. Friend that they have been concerned with terrorism within the terms of the Act.
I support the first amendment. I think that the individual should be given some indication of the evidence against him, as I tried to make clear in an earlier debate. If not, I am not too happy about the second amendment. Does the hon.


Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) consider that it would be a good thing to insist that someone should have legal advice, when that advice may be useless as the solicitor who is attempting to help the individual cannot get any indication of the evidence and cannot prepare any brief or representation? It could be that the hon. Gentleman feels that when the individual meets the assessor it would be useful to have a solicitor present to assist him. If the solicitor has no indication of the evidence his presence will still be unhelpful.

Mr. Mikardo: It would provide a bit of moral support.

Mr. Thomas: Yes, that is fair enough. I hope that the Government will accept both amendments because they go hand in hand. It would be far better if the individual could be given some indication of the evidence. He could then obtain legal assistance to help him produce a case against the evidence that has been suggested against him.
My right hon. Friend talked about the acts of terrorism which he feels have been prevented by this legislation. I honestly do not feel that there is any way of saying whether acts of terrorism have been prevented by it. I should not think that they have been prevented under any exclusion order process. I and all my hon. Friends insist that we want to ensure that a person is brought to trial and charged in the appropriate manner, with the full force of the law, if there is any evidence against him. But we are now talking about situations in which people are excluded and families are broken up, situations in which no indication is given of the evidence against the individual either to themselves, Members of Parliament, lawyers families or anyone else.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am sorry, but I cannot be moved regarding a statutory change on these two matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was right when he said that one could accept the first amendment and get away with it by merely giving the reasons which already appear in Clause 4. However, that would be to mislead the House and would not be an honourable way to proceed. We cannot go further

than we have gone without seriously undermining sources to which I must have the greatest regard.
Regarding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), I cannot prove that the Act has prevented particular acts of terrorism. If we can apprehend the people who have committed acts of terrorism, we can bring them to justice. Often 20 or 30 people are killed. This is the Prevention—not the punishment—of Terrorism Bill. There are provisions in ordinary law for the punishment of acts of terrorism. We cannot sit back and wait until people have committed acts of terrorism in the hope of catching them afterwards. That is not the philosophy underlying the legislation.
I am not prepared to accept a statutory provision on the second matter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that it would not in itself erect the whole mechanism of a trial, but it would move towards a more rigid procedure. It could lead to interchanges between the adviser and the man concerned becoming matters of public controversy, and that would lead to a more formal kind of interview. Such formality might be deleterious to the interests of the person concerned.
The object of the adviser is not to try a man, but to apply a second opinion to my judgment and, in certain cases—this has already happened—to say, "I think that, on the balance of the evidence submitted to you, the case is not strong enough." The adviser will apply a second test to whether I am acting reasonably, based on a judgment of a man's character in a fairly free-ranging discussion with him and knowledge of the facts. It is not a judicial procedure.
If it is felt that people are unduly exposed, I should be willing to consider as a matter of general practice—I cannot guarantee it in all circumstances—to discuss with the advisers whether it would be reasonable, if an individual wished, for him to be accompanied by somebody else, whether he be a lawyer or not. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Beith: I share the Home Secretary's assessment of the purposes of the Bill and do not seek to challenge it. The right hon. Gentleman said that it


is the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. We are dealing with provisions which we would not employ as part of the trial and punishment process, but we still need to improve them for the protection of the individual in so far as that is consistent with the protection of society as a whole.
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the provision for some other person to accompany a man on whom an exclusion order has been served. I shall need to read and re-read in Hansard what he said before being clear how far he has gone in that respect. I am still puzzled by some of his reservations.
I welcome the attempt to broaden the terms of my amendment by bringing in persons other than legal advisers. I share his reasons for wanting to do that. However, I am not clear why in certain circumstances he would not wish any particular person to accompany someone on whom an order had been served. I can understand why certain people might be inappropriate. I can understand why, if the accompanying person is not restricted to a category with certain professional disciplines, he might say that person is not appropriate to accompany the man served with the exclusion order. However, it is more difficult to understand why any individual, whatever the case against him, should be wholly precluded from being accompanied by a friend, legal adviser or other person when he goes to meet the Home Secretary's adviser.

9.0 p.m.

It must be made clearer to those on whom exclusion orders are served that such a possibility might be open to them. I do not know whether a person on whom an order has been served has ever been accompanied as suggested, but if the Home Secretary accepts the principle, it is reasonable that the situation should be made clear. People must know that the opportunity is open to them.
It may be said that Amendment No. 24 will add nothing to the Bill since it would remain possible for the Secretary of State to use the provisions in Clause 4 as a general reason for exclusion in every case. I do not believe the courts will look with approval on persistent use of such a provision by the Executive. The possibility of a challenge in the courts is open in relation to every order. The same form of words could be trotted out each time, but I doubt very much whether that would find favour with the judiciary. I am sure that neither the present Home Secretary nor his successors would wish to proceed in that way. I am sure that he could find a half-way house between the two arguments. Since he fails to find such an opportunity at present, I believe that the House should have the opportunity to press the matter so that the possibility should be quite clear.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 116.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[9.2 p.m.


Beith, A. J.
Hooson, Emlyn
Rooker, J. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bidwell Sydney
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Corbett, Robin
Mikardo, Ian
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cryer, Bob
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Noble, Mike
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flannery, Martin
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freud, Clement
Parry, Robert



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Penhaligon, David 
Mr. Cyril Smith and


Hooley, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Richard Wainwright.




NOES


Alison, Michael
Bishop, E. S.
Carson. John


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cartwright, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Ashton, Joe
Booth, Albert
Crawshaw, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speltho[...]e)
Bradford, Rev Robert
Crouch, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bates, Alf
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan, Richard
Deakins, Eric




Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Doig, Peter
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCusker, H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, John (Newton)
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Viggers, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Graham, Ted
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mudd, David
Ward, Michael


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watt, Hamish


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon
Welsh, Andrew


Henderson, Douglas
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Park, George
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch[...])


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Rt Eon Roy (Stechford)
Rathbone, Tim
Wilson, Cordon (Dundee E)


John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Johnson, Jamas (Hull West)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Woof, Robert


Judd, Frank
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kilfedder, James
Rowlands, Ted
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. James Hamilton and


Le Marchant, Spencer
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Mr. J. D. Dormand.


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sims, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 5, line 7, leave out
'or as the case may be the United Kingdom'
and insert
'Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as the case may be'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 7

POWERS OF REMOVAL

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 5, line 21, leave out
'or as the case may be the United Kingdom'
and insert
'Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as the case may be'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 8

OFFENCES UNDER PART II

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—
'(bb) a person is knowingly concerned in arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into Northern Ireland of, or in Northern Ireland knowingly harbours, a person whom he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be a person subject to an order under section (orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland) of this Act, or'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 9

POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 6, line 13, leave out 'or 8' and insert
'8, (contributions towards acts of terrorism) or (information about acts of terrorism)'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 21, leave out '5 days' and insert '48 hours'.
Throughout the proceedings on this Bill and its predecessor there have been many expressions of regret from all quarters of the House about the fact that we are legislating to detain people without charge and without trial. The best that even the most passionate advocate of the Bill has been able to say about it is that it is a necessary evil. Many tears have been shed over this evil which we commit, and the reactions to the amendment will be a fair test of which tears are genuine and which crocodile.
9.15 p.m.
If we are as genuine in believing that it is monstrous in Great Britain to keep in detention people who have had no charge levelled against them and who are not brought to trial—there have been motions on the Order Paper deploring that practice in the Soviet Union, Chile,


Indonesia and many other places—as we are in believing that it is monstrous to do so in, say, Indonesia, the least we can do is to shorten as far as possible the period of detention. I am not wildly enthusiastic about moving the amendment, because I object to the principle as a whole. I am in a fall-back position.
Originally, we had a period of 48 hours. It could be argued that if a man is arrested late on Friday night, it is difficult to get hold of people over the weekend and more time might be needed. I know many cases of people having been detained for two days and then for five days, and then being released without anything having been done.
We should put the authorities on their mettle and give them a little less time, so that they have to move into action more quickly. No doubt the time passes quickly for those in authority who are able to go home and have a meal with their wives at night, but it is long drawn out for the fellow who has been detained. I wish to put a shade more urgency into the proceedings. If the authorities cannot find out enough to sustain a case against a person in four days, they will not find it out in seven days. The history of detention up to now suggests that that is so. To adopt the amendment would be a move in the right direction.

Dr. Summerskill: The amendment would have the effect of reducing from five days to 48 hours the period for which the Secretary of State may extend the detention of a person arrested under Clause 9 beyond the first 48 hours. Thus, the maximum period for which a person arrested under Clause 9 could be held would be reduced from seven days to four.
The reason for including in the Bill this exceptional power to be used in exceptional circumstances is to enable persons suspected of being involved in acts of terrorism to be detained for up to seven days so that the police can examine a suspect thoroughly and take all the necessary steps to establish whether the person concerned has been involved in acts of terrorism. These steps, often including the examination of fingerprints and other records to obtain positive identification of a person, sometimes take more than four days.
In deciding that the maximum period for which a person may be detained should be seven days, the Government took careful advice about the minimum period which would be required in a case where thorough investigation was considered necessary. If this amendment were accepted, the purpose of the subsection could be undermined and one of the powers which have been considered necessary to help combat the terrorist problem would be significantly weakened.
This exceptional power is essential in the present circumstances, but an exceptional power should always be an effective one, and my hon. Friends who are supporting the amendment are not disagreeing with the exceptional power. They support the principle of the Secretary of State being able to extend detention.

Mr. Mikardo: Actually, we do not.

Dr. Summerskill: The amendment supports the principle of extending detention, so the difference between us is really a matter of time. I suggest that the power as contained in the Bill is effective and that its effectiveness would be considerably reduced and rendered less useful if the amendment were accepted.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Does not my hon. Friend agree that five days is more objectionable than two days? Does not she feel that in replying to this amendment she has some obligation to comment on the conditions in which people are held for this extended period? From the cases about which I have written to the Home Secretary, it seems to me that sometimes people are treated worse when held in these circumstances than are those who are being held on ordinary criminal charges, certainly as far as visits are concerned. Can we have an assurance that my hon. Friend will look into the conditions in which people are held under these provisions?

Dr. Summerskill: As I have said before, if there are any complaints or representations to be made about the conditions in which people are being held, we are anxious and willing to look at them if hon. Members will tell us of the particular cases they have in mind. There is no difference about the way people are held, whether they are being held for five days or 48 hours. The principle of this exceptional power remains, and, as I have


pointed out, the amendment supports that power, so that we are disagreeing only about the exact time.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 6, line 21 at end insert—
'(3) Any person arrested under this section shall be entitled, provided that no hindrance is reasonably likely to be caused to the processes of investigation or the administration of justice by his doing so, to inform a relative, or require a police officer to inform a named relative, of the fact of his arrest and the place of detention; and any person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has extended the period shall be entitled to communicate with and consult in private a solicitor (or his duly authorised clerk) at any time during the five days'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments:
No. 36, in page 6, line 33, at end insert—

'(3) Where any person has been arrested under this section and is being held in England or Wales under an extension made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above such person shall be entitled immediately to have intimation sent to a solicitor that his professional assistance is required by such person, and informing him of the place where such person may be interviewed.
(4) Such solicitor shall be entitled to have an interview with the person arrested.
(5) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that a person arrested under this section and held in Scotland under an extension made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above is entitled to the rights conferred under section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

No. 47, in Clause 11, page 9, line 6, at end insert—
'(10) The provisions of Schedule (Rules of Police Procedure) shall apply to the operation of this Act'.
No. 58, new Schedule—[Rules of Police Procedure].

Mr. Bennett: On 28th November 1974, when the House was first considering the Prevention of Terrorism Act, many of us were concerned that we were taking away many civil rights, and, that being so, that we should do all we could to give some countervailing protections. We were particularly concerned that the Judges' Rules should be applied in any case of arrest or detention under these

provisions. Repeatedly we pressed Ministers for and received assurances that the Judges' Rules would be observed and that there would be access to solicitors and the right at least to contact a relative so that the family would know that a person was being held at a police station.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General told the House:
I can certainly undertake that my right hon. Friend will make that absolutely clear."—[Official Report, 28th November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 906.]
He went on to say that it was not possible, in the short time available for that legislation, to build in some administrative rules which would ensure that these rights were laid down.
Unfortunately, it appears, at least from the evidence that I have, that in many instances over the last 12 months the rights of access to solicitors have not always been made available. There has been plenty of time to consider the introduction of administrative rules or some other way in which the Judges' Rules could be incorporated into this legislation. The Government should have used the intervening period to draw up such safeguards.
I was disappointed, when reading through the Committee stage proceedings, to see that at the end of the debate there was merely a reiteration by the Minister that people had two possibilities open to them if the Judges' Rules were not observed. The first was that if they came to court it would be taken into account. The second was that they could use the complaints procedure against the police in order to try to get some redress if they felt they had been wrongly handled. In this very sensitive area it would have been reasonable, in bringing forward this legislation again, to build in safeguards of this sort.
On the Order Paper there are three possible ways suggested for reaching this objective. I do not suggest that any one of them is necessarily ideal, but I particularly press the Minister that, at least when the Bill goes to the other place, an attempt should be made to put into the legislation the undertakings given 12 months ago. These, unfortunately, in some cases have not been carried out.
I have been given a list of eight cases about which the National Council for Civil Liberties has been particularly concerned. In one case a man received an urgent telephone call from Belfast. His mother had died and he wished to go to the funeral. He left home to fly to Belfast and was then held by the police for over 24 hours before he had an opportunity to contact anybody. As soon as he was able to make contact, he was very quickly in a position to establish his credentials, and was rapidly released by the police.
I do not want to list these cases by name. These people have already suffered enough. In many instances, they have been the subject of newspaper stories. But it is very much a matter of concern that, in the instance I quoted, the police would have had their time saved if the man had been able to inform his wife that he was being detained. She could have made contact with the people who eventually assured the police that there was no reason at all for detaining the man.
Then there was the case of some people who were visiting London from Belfast and, most unfortunately, happened to travel on the day that the Guildford bomb trial started. They were detained for six days and for a considerable period of time had no opportunity to contact their parents or indicate to them their concern at being held. It was not possible for them to allay the concern of their parents as to what had happened.
In another case a man was held twice in a period of 12 months. On each occasion he had no opportunity to contact a solicitor or to assure his relatives that he was perfectly all right.
The comment will be made that if a person makes contact with a solicitor, or if his relatives are informed, it may impede inquiries, but it is very difficult for someone to convey to a solicitor information which will stop police inquiries being made. If the relatives were informed that a person was being detained, that would not normally impede inquiries.
Where someone is arrested in his own locality it is very important that a relative should be informed, for one of the fears concerning the development of a totalitarian State is that a person can disappear

and there is no opportunity for people to know about it.
The National Council for Civil Liberties has also drawn my attention to the practice in Birmingham of taking in both husband and wife for questioning and leaving a policewoman to look after the children. This is a very frightening experience for the children. Presumably, again, it gives nobody the opportunity to ask for legal advice for the people being interrogated.
In view of the feeling that this is a very evil measure though possibly a necessary one—we ought to be prepared to build into it these basic safeguards and to say that in every single case where these powers are used the Judges' Rules will be observed. Following the experience of the past 12 months, we ought now to put them into the statute, rather than merely having a repetition of the undertakings given in the debate just over 12 months ago.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: If it is convenient, I wish at this stage to speak to Amendment No. 36, which is grouped with Amendment No. 35.
My amendment would secure in its first subsection that a person arrested under those provisions during what might be called the five-day extension period would have the right to inform a solicitor or have information sent to a solicitor of the fact of his arrest. Under the second subsection he would have the right to an interview with a solicitor, though I make the point that I do not propose a private interview necessarily. The third subsection, although I understand it is technically defective, is intended to remove a doubt which exists in Scottish law. The wording of the amendment is drawn from Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and cannot therefore be said to be totally unprecedented on the British statute book.
At the moment, the rights that a person in England and Wales enjoys for access to a solicitor are said to be defined in the so-called Judges' Rules, which are a complete dog's breakfast which should have been sorted out long ago and which should now be sorted out quickly. It might be said that because we are here talking about rights which all people arrested enjoy or ought to enjoy, this Bill is not the place to achieve a reform


in the situation. I think that it is, at least in regard to the five-day extension period.
This Bill is the legislation which provides for the five-day extension. To be held without charge for seven days is very different from being held without charge for two days. The judges cannot be expected to get together to think up different rules, or even to apply the same rules to the five-day extension period. Either we do it, or it is not done at all. The argument that this is not the place to provide for access to a solicitor during the five-day extension period holds no water.
For that reason, we have to look at the rights which the Judges' Rules give to a person arrested for this extended period of five days. First, the Judges' Rules really are a dog's breakfast. They are in three different bits—the so-called principles, followed by the so-called rules, followed by the so-called administrative directions.
If they are not adhered to, there is no comeback for the victim of that, except in one case. If, as a result of not adhering to the rules, he has made a statement not in a voluntary manner, that statement will be held to be inadmissible in court. But there are all sorts of other ways in which the rules can be ignored without there being any comeback either as regards admissibility or as regards bringing a prosecution against those responsible.
To illustrate that I draw attention to Rules IV(a) and IV(d). Rule IV(a) provides that, where the police officer is taking a statement from a person, he has to start by asking whether the person making the statement wishes to write down himself what he wants to say. We see in Rule IV(d) that
Whenever a police officer writes the statement, he shall take down the exact words spoken by the person making the statement, without putting any questions other than such as may be needed to make the statement coherent, intelligible and relevant to the material matters: he shall not prompt him.
I dare say that on occasions many of us have made statements to the police which should be governed by those provisions. On neither of the two occasions that I have made statements to the police has either of those rules been adhered to. Most police officers engaged in taking

statements at police stations would be surprised to find that they are supposed first to invite the person making the statement to do the writing down himself. That is just an illustration of the way in which the rules are ignored and of the way in which when they are ignored there is absolutely nothing one can do about it.
It is said that the rules are only a guide and therefore any mandatory words which they appear to contain within them are mandatory only as a guide, which is a contradiction in terms. Let us see what the rules say specifically about access to solicitors. The relevant bits are Principle (c) and Administrative Direction 7(a), the first paragraph. The second paragraph does not have a letter. If we examine those two provisions we see that the judges do not seem to make a better job of writing legislation when they do it themselves than they sometimes say we do when we draft legislation. I point out that Principle (c) contains the loophole that one does not need to give access to a solicitor in cases where
no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of investigation".
However, when we consider the first paragraph of Administrative Direction 7(a) the phrase is different. It says:
where no hindrance is reasonably likely to be caused".
There is no reference to delay. It is hindrance without delay.
It is the normal practice, if different wording is used, to assume that someone means something different. If anyone is to adhere to that rule of drafting then presumably their illustrious lordships of the Queen's Bench should have done so. However, they have not done so. That is just one illustration of the type of mess we can get into when we stray from the path of putting legislation through the House of Commons with the rigorous procedures that apply here, and more particularly upstairs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) referred to some cases where people had been held without being given the opportunity to inform their relatives or a solicitor. As I understand the Judges' Rules—I think it is perfectly clear—that is contrary to the rules and there is no loophole in this


respect. If we turn to Administrative Direction 7(a), and the second unlettered paragraph it says,
He"—
that is the person in custody—
should be supplied on request with writing materials and his letters should be sent by post or otherwise with the least possible delay. Additionally, telegrams should be sent at once, at his own expense.
There is no loophole there about interfering with the judicial or investigation processes. Therefore, any prisoner who is denied the right to send a telegram at once, at his own expense, is being treated in a way which is fundamentally contrary to one bit, at least, of the Judges' Rules.
I ask the Minister who winds up the debate to say whether I am right in my interpretation of the second unlettered paragraph of Administrative Direction 7(a) and whether any people in England have been denied the right to send such a telegram. Is the Minister prepared to take steps to ensure that that unqualified provision in the Judges' Rules is vigorously adhered to in future? We should never tolerate, whatever the circumstances, Nacht und Nebel in this country. When people can disappear into a police station, be held without a charge and without even the capacity to tell somebody else, it is something reminiscent of Nacht und Nebel and the Hitlerian principles of the 1930s.
Ministers of both parties always say that the Judges' Rules are best kept out of statute. What I cannot understand is why, if it is desirable to keep the right of access to a solicitor out of statute in England, it is in statute in Scotland.

Mr. Mikardo: Because the Scots are more sensible.

Mr. Cunningham: I know that. But why are all the terrible disadvantages which are said to be likely to accrue if this terrible thing is done in England apparently not accruing in Scotland?
I have been in touch with the Lord Advocate about the situation in Scotland and the exact meaning of Section 19 of the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1975. That section dates back to 1887 at least and perhaps before that. It says clearly in statute:


(1) Where any person has been arrested on any criminal charge, such person shall be entitled immediately upon such arrest to have intimation sent to a solicitor that his professional assistance is required by such person, and informing him of the place to which such person is to be taken for examination.
(2) Such solicitor shall be entitled to have a private interview with the person accused before he is examined on declaration".

and so on.
I understand from the Lord Advocate's letter that there is some doubt as to whether the words in that section
arrested on any criminal charge
would exclude people arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Some people arrested under that Act would certainly be entitled to those rights, but there is a doubt about others. However, as I understand it, the preferred view of the Scottish legal luminaries is that they all would be entitled to access to a solicitor under the Scottish Act.
Whatever the view of their legal entitlement, I understand from the Lord Advocate that, as a matter of fact, anyone arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Scotland gets access to a solicitor from the very beginning. In his letter to me the Lord Advocate refers to the number of people arrested in the Strathclyde area, where nearly all the Scottish applications under this legislation have occurred, and says:
The police are willing to extend the right of access to a solicitor to all persons arrested and detained under Section 7 of the 1974 Act".
even if a court were to rule that there was some doubt about the legal, mandatory nature of the provision.
So if this is happening in Scotland without any terrible consequences which have been reported to us, why on earth can it not happen in England, too? The answer quite simply is habit—bad habit—and the sooner we get it changed, so that English practice comes into line with Scottish, and the sooner we get this dog's breakfast called the Judges' Rules sorted out by the House of Commons, whose responsibility it is to do it and which has been ignoring its responsibility for too long, the better.
I shall be prepared to vote for one of these amendments just to get something on to the statute book, knowing that it probably will be defective in some way, but in the belief that it will be an


encouragement to the Government if something is forced on to the statute book, rather than leaving the situation as it is and hoping for the best, as we have done for so many years.

Mr. Mikardo: I draw one clear conclusion from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)—if, at any time, I have reason to believe that I might be in danger of arrest under this Bill, I shall immediately take a train to Edinburgh and get myself arrested there. In the administration of the previous Act, as in many other things, it seems that the standards of civilised behaviour are higher in the north than in the south of this island. The three amendments that we are discussing, with slight differences, seek the same objective—to give certain rights to someone who is arrested under this legislation or who has been arrested and has had his period of detention extended—notably the right of access and communication.
9.45 p.m.
I do not mind which amendment my right hon. Friend accepts. I would be happy to forgo my own in favour of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I would be happy, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would be happy, to forgo both of them in favour of that in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). But certainly one of them must be accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) spoke of the horror of a chap being picked up and taken with his wife to a police station while a policewoman was left to look after the children. What a traumatic experience that must have been for the mother and children. But is it worse than the case of a man who was picked up and refused the right to make a telephone call or to make any communication at all? He was kept in custody for seven days and then released. In these seven days his wife did not have a clue where he was. She did not know whether he had been arrested, had an accident and was in hospital, had an accident at work, been kidnapped, had run off with a blonde or fallen down a pothole. I can document this case, if what I say should be contested. How would hon. Members like their

wives subjected to that ordeal? It is not very pleasant.
This sort of uncivilised, barbaric behaviour is not essential for the prevention of terrorism. I do not believe that terrorism is better prevented by denying a man in prison the right to let his wife know where he is, or stopping him from contacting a solicitor for advice about his position. I do not believe that that is the right way. It is a myth that is being built up to make life easy for those who are doing the detaining, rather than to increase the effectiveness of the prevention of terrorism or punishment for that and other crimes.
My example is not an isolated case. A reputable firm of solicitors has told me in a statement that it has handled a dozen cases under the previous Act and in none was the person concerned allowed contact with the outside.
It will not do. If my right hon. Friend does not accept one of the three amendments I hope that the House will register a strong protest.

Mr. Beith: The eloquence of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has saved me the necessity of developing the argument in favour of my amendment. I share all the views he expressed about his amendment. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that my constituents at least are more favourably placed than those of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). Being on the border, they can benefit from the enlightened legal provision on the other side if they wish.
I should have been aware that the amendment was unnecessary for Scotland, because of existing statutory provision. I have long believed that there is a need to place the Judges' Rules in statute form, though not the present Judges' Rules, which have been described as a dog's breakfast and need to be improved. We should start somewhere, and this is not a bad place to start.
A more important argument is that we are dealing with a far longer period of detention. The rules might have to have some modification for that purpose. The objective is the same—the protection of certain basic rights and liberties—but the nature of the exercise is different if


someone is detained for seven days. I could accept the Governments arguments that the rules as they are included in the amendment could be improved upon, but I think that they need to be there.
All that I need to do in giving support to the amendments is to apologise for the drafting of my amendment before the Home Secretary has a chance to attack it. Amendment No. 47 does not refer correctly to the point in the Bill where it should properly be placed, whereas the other amendments do, and there are points in the schedule that should have been omitted and other points that should have been included.
I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise the widely held feeling that the Judges' Rules are necessary in our statute book in any case, and particularly so when detaining people.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that his suggested amendment in relation to the schedule is also defective in regard to Scotland. It would be quite inappropriate for Scotland.

Mr. Beith: I readily accept that correction. My ignorance of these matters has already been demonstrated this evening. If the Home Secretary wishes to intervene in the debate, he may make the same point.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I recognise that among those who have spoken and who represent some differing points of view there has been widespread concern about the position. However, one must also recognise that there is a certain danger here. I make no objection to all these points being taken and argued very fully. It is the duty of hon. Members who believe, as I do, in protecting civil liberties, to take up these points. However, we are slightly in danger of getting away from the reality of what terrorism is and our discussions of the Bill. This has happened in the last hour or so.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that his constituents were lucky in that they were near to Scotland. They are also lucky in not having had terrorist attacks made upon them.
We must keep certain facts in mind. The position with which we were dealing

only two months ago should be remembered. There were then terrorist attacks about twice a week on a major scale in London, and there have been others. I regret to say that we could easily go back to that position in the near future. I must ask the House to keep that in mind.
First, it may be helpful to inform the House that chief officers of police, following the coming into effect of the first Act, have been specifically reminded that the normal safeguards for people in custody apply to persons who are detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation, and that includes the provisions of the Judges' Rules. It may well be that the Judges' Rules are fairly defective in some ways—a dog's breakfast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) described them. I am not sure that that would be the most powerful argument for writing them in statutory form into this legislation.
Secondly, I do not think that it would be right. There are quite powerful arguments on both sides about whether the Judges' Rules—no doubt brought up to date and looked at afresh—should be given statutory form. I would not take a firm view of principle against that at all. It may well be right to do that. However, it would not be right to put the Judges' Rules—dog's breakfast or not—in statutory form so far as terrorists were concerned and to leave the rules in non-statutory form so far as every other type of criminal was concerned.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend refers to people who are held for the five days as terrorists. That should not be allowed to pass. If they were terrorists, different considerations would apply. We are talking of people who may or may not be terrorists, and they are entitled to the full protection of the law as being innocent until they are proved otherwise.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: They are not subject to exclusion under the Act until they are proved in a court of law to be terrorists. There is no presumption of guilt here more than that anywhere else. However, the desire of the House and the overwhelming desire of the country is that we should give what protection we can against terrorist activities. That means before the act and not after the act.


People who are held under this Act are held under the suspicion that they are terrorists. That suspicion may or may not be right, but they are picked up because it is thought that they are likely to have been concerned in acts of terrorism.
Let us not get into the position of thinking that fears about groups of terrorists operating in this country are figments of people's fevered imagination. Sometimes one almost feels that some hon. Members talk as if that were the case. There is no doubt that there are substantial numbers of dedicated terrorists who are willing to do the most desperate damage to people in the perverted pursuit of what they regard as the right course.

Mr. Beith: Who is denying that?

Mr. Jenkins: Some hon. Members sometimes talk as though we are dealing with the most innocent of people.

Mr. Mikardo: This is not an answer.

Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed.
I respect the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and his knowledge of these matters. He follows these matters very closely—indeed, so closely that following his advice we took an hour and a half in introducing one of his clauses this afternoon, something which we did not originally intend to do. My hon. Friend took exception to my use of the word "terrorist". Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe them as suspected terrorists. However, we are dealing with people who are suspected of coming together to commit acts of terrorism. I do not think it right when dealing specifically with terrorism to put the Judges' Rules in statutory form in a way that does not apply more generally. I am willing to consider whether It is a reasonable proposition that the Judges' Rules should at some stage be put in statutory form, but if that is done it should he done generally.
I agree that the Judges' Rules are not completely clear. I accept that in some instances they are somewhat contradictory. I recognise that there may be good reasons in some cases for refusing to allow a person being interviewed to

communicate with someone outside the police station, but in my view that power should be used sparingly. I am bound to tell the House that there may be some circumstances in which the use of that power in the Judges' Rules may be justified if it is used sparingly, even if the provision is somewhat ambiguous. I think that that view would be taken by the majority of the House, were it present, in relation to terrorist activities.
It is fairly well known to the House that terrorists operate in fairly small groups. They do not operate singly but in what are sometimes known as active service units. If a member of such a unit is picked up it is not possible to be certain as to his guilt. It is necessary to engage in processes which take a little time to complete—for example, fingerprint comparison with prints that have been found in bomb factories or on bombs placed or exploded. That must be done to discover whether the person who has been picked up has had that sort of involvement. If such a person is picked up it is of the utmost importance to public safety that that action should lead to the police being able to arrest other members of the unit, which may number four, five or six. It is also of the utmost importance to discover, if possible, the store or factory which provides the unit with the material which enables it to do its job. It is a fact that if a man is immediately picked up and is allowed to send a signal announcing the fact, the chances of being able to proceed further in the near future are greatly reduced. That applies whether the signal goes to his family or, in certain cases, to his solicitor.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman should not assume that those who are concerned about certain aspects of this matter do not fully share his fears about the existence of groups of terrorists. I intervene briefly to draw attention to the presence in the Judges' Rules—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill and the National Coal Board (Finance) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Beith: I was about to draw attention to the presence in the Judges' Rules of the words
providing that no hindrance is reasonably likely to be caused to the processes of investigation, or the administration of justice by his doing so.
I grant that it might be possible to improve on that wording in a specific context. The exercise is not quite the same, but that qualification is there.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not wish to impute any difference in the dislike of terrorism to different hon. Members.

Mr. Mikardo: My right hon. Friend did.

Mr. Jenkins: With respect, I did not. It is no use my hon. Friend muttering. I have to bear a greater responsibility for the consequences of these acts than he does. I do not wish to be drawn any further into this controversy. I accept everybody's motives. We want to strike as reasonable a balance as we can between preventing acts of terrorism and preserving civil liberties.
I have been asked about the practical issues with which I have to deal. I have just outlined an extremely practical issue of the kind with which I have to deal.
I am not sure that the interpretation of the Judges' Rules by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right—that in all circumstances people have to be notified immediately.

Mr. George Cunningham: Yes.

Mr. Jenkins: He suggested that they did. However, I am sure that there would be a substantial body of opinion in the House to the effect that the Judges' Rules should be modified so far as they applied to terrorist activities.
I am confronted with a number of conflicting arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) does not think much of the Judges' Rules. The hon. Member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed wishes to write them into the law. The strongest point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who asked whether it could be right to go on after the 48 hours without ensuring as a matter of adminstrative practice that people were allowed to communicate before introducing the five-day period.

Mr. George Cunningham: Seven days.

Mr. Jenkins: Before moving into the five-day period there is the 48-hour period, which makes up the seven days. It might be possible to look into that matter.
For the reasons I have given—first, that the attention of chief officers has been drawn to the fact that the rules apply here as much as elsewhere; secondly, that it would not be right to put the rules in statutory form, even if they were appropriate to be put in a statutory form here or anywhere else; and, thirdly, that there are certain practical problems—I cannot advise the House to accept any of the amendments.

Mr. George Cunningham: My right hon. Friend has not addressed himself to the point which I thought the most compelling. How can it be right in Scotland and not have these terrible consequences there if it is not right and has terrible consequences in England? No one starting from scratch could explain bringing forward one situation for Scotland and another for England.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend undertake to communicate to the House somehow whether my understanding of the unqualified effect of Administrative Direction 7(a) is correct, and, if so, to say what he proposes to do about it? We cannot tolerate a situation in which the rules are categorical and yet are being constantly breached.

Mr. Jenkins: My initial impression in relation to the Judges' Rules is that there may be some contradiction, and there is certainly a division of opinion as expressed in this debate. Therefore, I think that we should examine the situation and see what follows.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will deal with the legal position in Scotland. I wish to point out


to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who spoke of dreadful consequences, that Scotland has not suffered any bombings.

The Lord Advocate: Let me deal with the part of Amendment No. 36 that is intended to apply to Scotland.
I can best approach the matter by pointing out that the amendment is defective in two respects in its application to Scotland. The first defect is that it refers only to the rights of an arrested person under Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. It should also refer to rights conferred by Section 305 relating to provisions similar to those in Section 19 in the case of a person arrested on a summary charge.
The second defect goes to the heart of the matter and could not be so readily cured. This part of the amendment commences with the words:
For the removal of doubt …
There is no doubt to be removed. A person who is arrested under the provisions of the Bill could undoubtedly rely on Section 19 or Section 305 of the 1975 Act. The only doubt is as to the precise ambit of the rights conferred in various situations covered by Clause 9. That is the doubt to which my reply to the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was directed. As I pointed out in that letter, even that doubt is largely theoretical. In practice there is no doubt.
Perhaps the best evidence on that point can be adduced from the Second Report

of the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure in Scotland, which was published towards the end of last year in Command 6218. Page 24 of the Report, at the beginning of the chapter dealing with the rights of persons in police custody, refers to the Scottish practice as follows:
It is the practice of the police to contact a solicitor if an arrestee so desires.
In those circumstances my hon. Friend may be willing to accept my assurance that this part of his amendment, in so far as it is not defective, is unnecessary.
In support of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I must point out that the position in Scotland is simply the standard procedure for arrested persons. The situation which my right hon. Friend adumbrated for England is standard procedure for a person arrested in England. The procedure which I have just outlined for Scotland gives the arrestee under this Bill no higher right than any other arrestee already enjoys.

Mr. James Dempsey: Is any action taken to notify the next-of-kin of a person apprehended by the police?

The Lord Advocate: That is a wider question and the answer depends on various circumstances. If my hon. Friend will write to me setting out the details, I shall be glad to reply to him.

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 109.

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[10.09 p.m.


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rooker, J. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bidwell, Sydney
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Litterick, Tom
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Corbett, Robin
Madden, Max
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cryer, Bob
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Noble, Mike
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flannery, Martin
Pardoe, John



Freud, Clement
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Hooson, Emlyn
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Ron Thomas.




NOES


Alison, Michael
Bates, Alf
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Peter
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bradford, Rev Robert
Carson, John




Cartwright, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Judd, Frank
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kilfedder, James
Rowlands, Ted


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Deakins, Eric
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCusker, H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stradling Thomas, J.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mahon, Simon
Tinn, James


Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Ter[...]y (Kingswood)


Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Millan, Bruce
Ward, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Watt, Hamish


Golding, John
Molyneaux, James
Welsh, Andrew


Gourlay, Harry
Monro, Hector
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Graham, Ted
Moyle, Roland
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Grist, Ian
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Harper, Joseph
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, George
Woodall, Alec


Henderson, Douglas
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hunter, Adam
Rathbone, Tim



Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


James, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Reid, George
Mr. David Stoddart.


John, Brynmor
Rifkind, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.


Clause 10


CONTROL OF ENTRY AND PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL


Amendment made: No. 38, in page 7, line 12 after '8', insert


'or (information about acts of terrorism)'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 7, line 17, at end insert:
'(2) For the purpose of facilitating the examination of persons arriving in Great Britain from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland or arriving in Northern Ireland from Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland in accordance with subsection (1)(a) above, and for facilitating the control of entry of persons into Great Britain or Northern Ireland no person shall be admitted to Great Britain or Northern Ireland without production of a valid passport or such other document of identification as the Secretary of State shall provide for citizens of the United Kingdom'.
In it we propose nothing which would seriously inconvenience the law-abiding. Still less would it threaten the freedom of the individual, which so greatly depends on the defeat of terrorism. Indeed, it would contribute towards that. In Committee we were told that police opinion was adverse to what we suggest. I am not the only hon. Member who had heard otherwise from police and military officers closer to the struggle than anyone in this House.
I much regret the absence in hospital of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates). He has seen service with the Army in Ulster, he has personal and practical knowledge of security measures and he has advocated a particular design of identity card which he considers to be reasonably forgery proof. I have it in my possession. We are not tied to any particular form. That suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend looks a little like a credit card. On it are embossed the name and status of the holder, together with a reference number. That reference number might be the same as the person's national insurance number. The card would include a photograph and fingerprints. Fingerprints are not liked. I do not like the idea, but it is a small price to pay for even one innocent life.
In Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) said:
The fingerprint does not produce any undesirable Police State implications."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A. 16th December 1975; c. 118.]
The reason for that is that the only edition of the fingerprint need be that placed

on the card, and the only person in proper possession of it would be the person whom it identifies.
I do not know what the Home Secretary will say, but he may again tell us that our scheme would be expensive and non-productive. The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee:
the amount of expense which would be involved in the universal issue of identity cards would be significant, but it is a degree of expense which I should be prepared to countenance—and, I believe, the Government would, if it would lead to the extirpation of terrorism."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16th December 1975; c. 131.]
As the Home Secretary recognised in Committee, the amendment encompasses not the universal issue of identity cards but the issue of documents for travellers. One can argue for identity cards for everyone, and I have argued that case, but the amendment is strictly concerned with checks upon movement. As for expense, it would be for consideration whether a small fee would be levied for the issue of a document.
The Home Secretary maintained in Committee that police checks should appear to be haphazard, selective and unpredictable, but perhaps he attached too much importance to the wording, of the amendment, which is as follows:
no person shall be admitted to Great Britain or Northern Ireland without production of a valid passport or such other document of identification as the Secretary of State shall provide for citizens of the United Kingdom".
We are not insisting in that wording that officials should be obliged to inspect the travel document of every person passing through the check, so perhaps the amendment could be better worded.
Immigration officers are already making checks by inspecting, for example, driving licences. In Northern Ireland a driving licence bears the holder's photograph. Sometimes less satisfactory documents than driving licences are produced before immigration officers.
The Home Secretary laid before Parliament in November a Statutory Instrument under the previous Act—The Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order 1974, which


came into operation on 30th November. Article 5 of that order is as follows:
It shall be the duty of any person examined under Article 4"—
that is, persons examined when arriving in or leaving Great Britain—
to furnish to the person carrying out the examination all such information in his possession as that person may require for the purpose of his functions under that Article.
Article 2 is as follows:
A person on his examination under Article 4 by an examining officer shall, if so required by the examining officer … produce either a valid passport with photograph or some other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality or citizenship;
I do not think that the Home Secretary can be so far away from our amendment, or at least its purpose.
We have heard few objections from Northern Ireland to the sort of system we are advocating. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed this out in Committee. Formerly, there were objections to proposals to differentiate between Ulster people and other United Kingdom citizens. This amendment does not do that. Persons entering the United Kingdom by sea, air or land would have to show on authorised demand this or other identity documents.
This brings me to the position of Irish citizens, which raises important questions between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Irish Republic. The effect of the British Nationality Act 1948, the Ireland Act 1949 and the Immigration Act 1971 is to exempt from immigration control citizens of countries within the Common Travel Area embracing the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Irish Republic. That exemption has already been qualified in the Prevention of Terrorism legislation. The Secretary of State has taken the power to exclude Irish citizens and to examine travellers between the Irish Republic and Great Britain. The carrying out of what we ask would require discussion with Dublin, but I cannot believe that an Irish Government so determined to suppress terrorism would show themselves unreasonable or unconstructive.
We cannot afford to neglect any instrument for the apprehension of terrorists and the protection of human life and

property, and although the Home Secretary may say "No" today, he may say "Yes" a little later. I beg him not to close his mind but to consider what could be done in another place.

Mr. Powell: It has been recently shown by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition that it is a perilous enterprise In this House for anyone not a Scot to quote Burns, yet I am emboldened to attempt the same enterprise and to say,
For a'that, for a'that,
It's coming yet, for a'that.
and although tonight perhaps the Home Secretary—I hope not—will repeat the objections he raised in Committee to this proposal, it is a proposal which sooner or later, and better sooner than later, will be found to be indispensable.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) pointed out how narrow, though still important, is the difference between the law as it stands under the regulations made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the law as this amendment would leave it if it were accepted. There is at present a power to require the production of documents of identification for the purpose of this legislation, but the manner in which that power is exercised is at present unsatisfactory, and the unsatisfactory nature of this exercise is something which calls in question the seriousness of the implementation of the Act and, indeed, has wider implications by calling in question the seriousness of the Government in maintaining the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Many hon. Members—those on this Bench and some hon. Members opposite, although those on the Treasury Bench commonly travel by different and less harassing methods—are familiar with what actually happens when travellers enter and leave Great Britain from or for Northern Ireland. I am not just saying that the procedure is haphazard in the sense that the special branch police who are in charge do not know what they are doing, but it is indeed a remarkable procedure. My method is to raise my hat, and that is sufficient to secure my admission or exit, as the case may be. I believe that that is perfectly lawful, for I have satisfied those responsible—it would be difficult not to—of my identity.
10.30 p.m.
But behind and in front of me there stretches a queue of people—women with children, business men, and so on—fumbling in their handbags and brief cases—no, the business men will not have their brief cases with them at this stage; they have to wait another 30 minutes or so to get them back—in their wallets for a bit of paper by which they can perfunctorily—and it is necessarily perfunctory—satisfy the examining officer of their identity.
Others carry their passports, and show them as they would if entering Heathrow on return from the Continent. Others show driving licences, which, if they are issued in Great Britain, contain no form of identification other than their signature.
It is a totally haphazard procedure, and I simply cannot believe that it conduces to the efficient performance of the tasks laid upon the examining officers, or to the fulfilment of the law as it has been made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Those of us interested in this matter have studied many times what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee. In Committee he said that
the police have an almost universal view … in believing that the introduction of a compulsory system by which they would not be permitted to admit anyone without such documentation, and would therefore have a responsibility for doing a universal check, so far from helping them would be a considerable disadvantage."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16th December, 1975; col. 132.]
Try as I may, I must say for myself that I cannot understand the argument. Is it alleged that, if it were a requirement that those entering or leaving were to carry passports, or another form of specified identification, the examination of those entering or leaving would need to be more exhaustive or more time-consuming, or that there would be less opportunity for the police to concentrate—as of course they should—upon doubtful cases, without wasting time where they were instantaneously satisfied? After all, there is no substantial difference here from the control upon entry to the United Kingdom from elsewhere outside the Common Travel Area.
We all know that the immigration officers, the Home Office staff at the

point of entry, are highly skilled and concentrate their time and attention upon the necessary cases, waving through, upon the production of a passport, which takes only a few seconds, those whom they have no reason to spend more time in examining. I cannot see but that the same reasoning applies as between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in present circumstances.
Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it is the haphazard nature of the operation, the fact that there is no obligation to carry a specific document of identity, which enables the police to perform their tasks successfully, then it would appear to follow that we should have more chance of preventing international criminals and other undesirables from entering the United Kingdom if we were to abolish the requirement of carrying a passport to come into the United Kingdom from outside the Common Travel Area.
I have been very careful, and most considerate, in the examples and cases I have given, in making no reference whatsoever to a subject which must be a painful one for the Home Secretary's mind to dwell upon, and to which, therefore, I have deliberately made no reference, feeling that the reference to entry from outside the Common Travel Area is fully sufficient for my purposes.
I believe that it is necessary for the Home Secretary to face the requirement of rendering the enforcement of the law under this Act and the regulations made under it much more regular than it is at present and for it to be seen to be regular and a requirement by all those concerned. If he has a case for saying that to do so would involve an undue and unnecessary expenditure of police and other manpower, he must explain far more convincingly than he has yet succeeded in doing how that arises.
My arguments are directed wholly to the ambit of the Bill. However, it would be absurd to deny that there is a connection between the apparent determination of the Government to avoid disturbing the Common Travel Area for the purposes of the Bill and the much larger question of the determination of successive Governments to keep up the fiction that there is some essential difference in the distinction between United King-


dom citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic and the distinction between United Kingdom citizens and citizens of the other countries of the European Economic Community. I shall not dwell upon that point, but it is one which goes to the very heart of the political background to the terrorist activities in Northern Ireland which are the underlying reason for the Bill.
Therefore, although the ambit of the debate is narrow, its implications are very large. I join with the hon. Member for Epping Forest in assuring the Home Secretary that the question of control upon travel between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom is one which will not go away, will not lie down, and will not rest in its present unsatisfactory form. It may be brushed aside once again this evening and in the passing of the Bill, but it will return and sooner or later it will have to be dealt with and acknowledged openly for what it is—the control of movement between two independent and mutually foreign States.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for the way in which he moved this important amendment because it raises questions of considerable importance. It is desirable that even at the end of a fairly long series of debates we should deal with it seriously, but I do not think that that necessarily means dealing with it at length.
There is no difference of principle between the hon. Member for Epping Forest and myself on this matter. However, there is a certain difference between the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and myself because in the concluding part of his remarks he indicated that he rather wanted for its own sake the erection of travel barriers between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. That is not my view. I would embrace them in the same way as I would embrace travel controls between the Six Counties and the United Kingdom if I thought that they would make a significant difference to our battle against terrorism. However, the right hon. Gentleman took the matter somewhat wider, as I think he recognised, and raised the point that it was desirable in principle to break the Common Travel Area. That, I think, goes wider than the point

made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. Between the hon. Member and myself there is no difference in principle. We would embrace such measures if we thought that they would help in the battle against terrorism. No one should take up a dogmatic position—I would not accuse the hon. Member of so doing—on this matter.
We have argued this matter at some length. We probably debated it for an hour and a half in Committee, and some of the arguments will be familiar to most hon. Members present now. At the end of the day, I said that, although I was satisfied that the police did not think that such new controls would be helpful, I would consult them again and report to the House at this stage. This I have done, formally and in writing. I have consulted the Commissioner of Police and the relevant committee of the Association of Chief Officers of Police. They remain firmly of the opinion that, subject to one small matter with which I will deal later, no new powers or documents are required, and that this suggestion would, in their view, make no useful contribution to the task of controlling the movement of terrorists across the Irish Sea.
I do not believe that it would be right to impose, against the advice of the police, a requirement for which they see no need. The decision for this must, of course, be one upon which Ministers should advise the House and it must be for the House to decide whether to take that advice. I would certainly not wish to promulgate the doctrine, in which I do not believe, that the police should make law. But it seems to me that it would be foolish for the Government to go against police advice in a matter of this sort, which essentially concerns the best use of manpower to detect terrorists.
I do not know whether I can move any way towards convincing the right hon. Member for Down, South. In Committee, he put, as he often does, a pretty acute point, which he rather repeated tonight, when he asked why, if what I was advocating was right, the existence of passports for travel outside the Common Travel Area did not impede the detection of international crime. I was aware that in endeavouring to deal with that argument in Committee I did not absolutely convince myself that I had dealt with all aspects of it and therefore thought it


unlikely that I had succeeded totally in convincing everybody else. Therefore, I tried not only to get the advice of the police as to what they thought should happen but also in the interval to apply myself to exactly this point and to see, if it were invalid, why it was invalid.
I believe that it is so for this reason: we apply immigration control to entry from countries outside the Common Travel Area. We do not apply immigration control within the Common Travel Area. The right hon. Gentleman may think that we should, but we do not do so. Therefore, the supervision of travel within the Common Travel Area, or within the United Kingdom for that matter—within the two separate parts of the United Kingdom—is a matter for the police and the police only, whereas in the case of people coming in from areas outside the Common Travel Area, that is primarily a matter for immigration officers, with the police able, as it were, to move freely and selectively, and, on top of the work of the immigration officers, to do their work of crime control or terrorist control as a supplementary, selective process.
On the other hand, if there were an absolute requirement that people could not enter the United Kingdom without a passport or some other document, without a great deployment or redeployment of manpower that we do not have or cannot spare it would be necessary for the police themselves, who are the only people there concerned, to do this universal check.
That is the difference. That is the reason why the police are not only sceptical but a little more than sceptical about the value of this provision. They not only say that they do not want it: there is a hint that they think that it would be positively deleterious.
They believe that a control which is designed to identify terrorists should concentrate principally on examining and assessing the travellers themselves rather than relying entirely on the documents they carry. Although it may seem paradoxical, they see certain positive advantages in there being a variety of documents, which enable them in certain cases to engage in conversations with travellers as to why they are carrying particular documents. This may lead to some more useful information than going through

the routine passport check as is done in other cases. That is the essential difference.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: We all appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to keep separate the police procedures and the procedures carried out by immigration officials. In that case, why is it thought desirable to use at certain airports in the London area immigration cards to be completed by travellers from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Jenkins: A variety of methods is used, but they are not subject to the normal checks through immigration officials. There is a difference in the relationship of the police and immigration officials to movement, whether between Northern Ireland and Great Britain or between the Republic and Great Britain.
I do not want to be dogmatic about this. I do not think there is any chance of my changing my mind, because the advice I get will not change between now and the remaining stages of the Bill in another place. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view that this will necessarily come. I very much hope that it will not. I hope that we shall move into a position in which the need for it will appear much less attractive to some people than at present.
I agreed to meet the right hon. Gentleman on the point about reciprocity, having been persuaded by his argument. If I believed that full passport control would make a significant contribution to defeating terorrism without having a number of disadvantages, I would be prepared to set aside all those considerations and to introduce it. However, I am not prepared to introduce it as a gesture to demonstrate toughness when those in positions of responsibility advise me that it would not help.
I hope that the Opposition will place considerable weight on the advice I have been given and will think carefully about going against it. That advice could change. If it did I would take careful notice of it.
I have fully discharged the undertaking which I gave in Committee that I would consult fully and thoroughly again. I consulted the Commissioner and the Association of Chief Police Officers,


representing provincial forces throughout the country.
There is one matter on which the police do want controls over entry to be tightened. They are anxious about the possibility of potential terrorists entering Great Britain in light aircraft which may not land at airports where passengers may be examined. At present there are requirements which apply to aircraft carrying fare-paying passengers but not to private planes which may carry one or two passengers other than for reward.
We wish to have the power to require, if necessary, any aircraft to land at airports where crew and passengers may be examined. No new provision for this is required in the Bill. The necessary requirements can be made by Order when the Bill becomes law. I will discuss the detailed arrangements with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. As the new requirements are bound to cause a marginal measure of inconvenience and expense to those operating the aircraft, it is right to tell the House of the proposals. My disposition is to strengthen the Order to plug this possible loophole as far as possible.
I hope that hon. Members, bearing in mind that we can make ongoing judgments about the matter, will not divide the House. It would be unfortunate if, against professional advice, we gave the impression that there was some protection that we could give if only we were not stubborn. It is not a question of being stubborn. It is a question of acting on the best professional advice—not infallible, but to be given a great deal of weight. If that advice changes, I shall reconsider the matter.

Mr. Lawrence: I had hoped to catch your eye before the Home Secretary rose, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief, because some of my intended remarks may now be superflous, but I should say something as I contributed to the debate on the matter in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no difference in principle between him and the Opposition. He does not think that the difficulties surrounding identity cards or problems of cost would stand in the way of what is proposed. He bases his refusal to accept our amendment

on the argument that the best professional advice from police officers is against it.
I shall not vote against the right hon. Gentleman now, but I urge him to keep the matter in the forefront of his mind, so that if he or the police change their mind we need not wait another year before the amendment is implemented. There may be differences of opinion about whether it would limit the number of terrorists coming into the country, but if the people feel that the Government and Parliament are doing everything possible to deter terrorism the whole climate will be much better than it may be at times now.
We are not starting from scratch and expecting that there may be some terrorism in the future, not yet having had any, and seeing no reason to introduce legislation which is costly in money or manpower. In present circumstances, with no identity cards, terrorists are not being prevented from entering the country. There was more terrorism here last year than in the year before. Something more must be done, or we run the risk of recurrent bouts of terrorism caused by terrorists coming from the other side of the Irish Channel, slipping through our protective barriers.
I appreciate that the essence of the police objection is that they may not have enough manpower to cope. That is not a sufficient reason for not preparing ourselves to take this action when we can build up the manpower. If cost is not a reason, and identity cards are not a reason, we must do something about manpower. If it means a reallocation of resources so that we attract more people into the police force or the immigration control force over the next 12 months, so that they are properly manned, we must do it.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman never seems to move along with the argument. I answered this point in Committee. The job is one of the most skilled that the police have to do. People with great knowledge and considerable experience are needed to do this Special Branch work. The recruitment of an extra 5,000 people into the police would make no difference, within the period we are discussing, to the ability of the police to do this skilled job effectively. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will occasionally take the point.

Mr. Lawrence: I do take the Home Secretary's point, but it does not impress me, and it will not impress most of the public.

Mr. Jenkins: Why does it not impress the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Lawrence: It does not impress me because over a period of time people can be trained to look at identity cards to see whether they are in order or are not in order. It does not require a vast amount of police training or the greatest amount of experience and wisdom in order to do that. Immigration officers exist who do not have necessarily the degree of training that police officers have. I am not saying that we can do this tomorrow. This is a plea to start manpower recruitment and training to the degree required so that perhaps at some time in the future, if it is necessary, we shall be able to do this. The Home Secretary said that there is an advantage, of which the police have informed him, of conversations which can take place but which might not take place if there were identity cards and, of course, that is a very understandable point of view. But we do not know whether that way we are tracking down more people than we would be tracking down if there were identity cards.
The fact of the matter is that the terrorists are getting into this country. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary to bear this matter very much in mind as he has borne very much in mind the attitude of the police on previous occasions. One has only to recall the objection to proscribing the IRA 12 months ago. The Home Secretary was telling the House then, or if not him then his predecessor in office, that the police had said that proscribing the IRA would make their job more difficult. In due course the pressure of public opinion, as reflected in this House, brought about the proscribing of the IRA in the Bill this time last year.
Twelve months have gone by, and we have had the experience of it. The Home Secretary has not said that this experience has been a failure. I only draw his attention to this to say—with the greatest of respect in the world for the police—that the police view of two years ago is not necessarily the police view today. I ask him to bear that matter very much in mind.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House but I think that these matters are very important and worthy of the gravest consideration. While I give all credit to the Home Secretary, all I am asking is that he will keep these matters in mind. I hope that I can urge upon him the acceptance of the view that manpower resources in the experience or wisdom of the police, are matters which could be taken into account in the coming months so that, if necessary, identity cards can be introduced.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: First, I should like to get one small point out of the way. The Home Secretary referred to it. There will be a general welcome for the arrangement as far as light aircraft are concerned. This is believed to be a loophole which should be dealt with, and I would strongly support the arrangement.
As the House knows, I come rather fresh to this argument in its current context of this Bill, if not in the least fresh to it in another guise or role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) made a very powerful case when moving the amendment. He made it clear that it was none of our purpose in putting forward this proposal that it should be just a gesture. If that were the case I would agree entirely with the Home Secretary. A gesture in this regard would be totally valueless, and I can think of no reason for suggesting it. But that is not the problem.
I must say, in parenthesis, to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that I did not, as he will appreciate, have the experience of the sort of travel that he undertakes in Northern Ireland. I travelled around by a rather different means. I am glad that I did not travel by his means, because I never wear a hat if I can possibly avoid it.
I believe that we have to think very carefully, if the police view is that this provision would not help, whether this House would be entitled to press forward at this stage with this proposal. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the police would not favour it. Indeed, he went as far as to say that in some cases they might regard it as possibly harmful to their efforts.
Here I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the methods employed by the Special Branch are highly sophisticated and are not matters which we normally discuss in the House, nor indeed should we. This matter is not something that can be easily brushed aside as though one could recruit a few people tomorrow and hope that thereafter they would be powerful people in the prosecution of terrorists. It does not work that way.
We must realise that the members of the Special Branch have a very special role and that the way in which the police act in this matter must be something of which they are the best judges. That is where I find the Home Secretary's arguments persuasive.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Home Secretary and the police will constantly look at this matter. If at any time it is felt that it would be helpful to have this provision, I hope that the Home Secretary will not hesitate to come back to the House and say so. There is a widespread feeling in the country that this would help. The Home Secretary has told us that the people who actually operate in this matter and on whom we rely in dealing with terrorism feel that it would not help. Very well. I still hope that if at any time they felt that it would help they would not hesitate to say so. If the mood or the idea changes, it should certainly be brought forward. Whether the right hon. Member for Down, South was right in saying that it was bound to come is a point on which I would not speculate tonight—certainly not at this hour of the night.
As for tonight, I think that it would be reasonable not to vote on the amendment, simply because the people who would have to operate the whole arrangement do not feel that it would help them, and they are the people on whom we should rely. In the circumstances I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that it would be right not to press the amendment.
I shall say nothing further because I see that another hon. Member wishes to speak in the debate and I do not wish to preclude him.

Mr. James Kilfedder: There is a real need for officials, and

especially members of the Special Branch in Great Britain, who are responsible for interviewing and questioning at points of disembarkation, to do that with proper consideration for the ordinary traveller. The Home Secretary, in replying to what was said by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), emphasised that members of the Special Branch were people who were very skilled police officers. I should like to give him and the House some examples of just what some of the Special Branch do at these points of disembarkation in Great Britain.
I take up what the Home Secretary said about producing some evidence which would be of interest to the police and might lead to some conversations between the police and the person being interviewed. One of my constituents happens to be the president of a respected professional organisation in the United Kingdom. For his year of office he has a gold medal. He carries it on his person because it is very valuable. When he was searched at a check-point by the Securicor men they wanted to know what it was all about. He was eventually allowed through, but then he was stopped by the Special Branch and asked about the gold medal and about those who were members of this professional organisation. Is that the sort of skill to which the Home Secretary refers? I do not think so. There have been many such cases, and the people of Northern Ireland are tired of being treated as if they come from a leper colony when they enter another part of the United Kingdom, a country of which they are citizens.
I give another example which concerns an incident which occurred only recently. It is right to bring this matter to the notice of the Home Secretary as he is placing such importance on the way in which the Special Branch in Great Britain carries out its duties at the airports and at Liverpool and other ports. Recently three of my constituents were interrogated by a member of the Special Branch. Again, I do not have his name. In this instance the officer refused to give it. As he was in plain clothes it was not possible to get his number. In front of a queue of people at Liverpool dock who were waiting for their baggage to be checked before boarding the boat for Belfast, a Special Branch officer asked a


young man who was with his father and another young person whether he hated the police. Is that a question which a skilled police officer should put to anyone? I think that it was meant to trap. I think that it was totally wrong of the officer to put such a question to the young man.
My constituent was then told that he was the spokesman for the gang, that he was speaking for his father and the other young man who was employed by the father. Apparently the officer expected him to be the leader of a gang. Is that the language to use to an ordinary traveller, to a young man who has never been in trouble in his life? The officer went on to say that no doubt my constituent had forged his identity papers and that his driving licence was stolen. Is that the way in which a skilled Special Branch officer is supposed to operate?
I happen to know that that incident took place only recently. The officer was not satisfied with the monstrous assertions he had made. He went on to address my constituent with the prefix "terrorist", suggesting that he was a member of the IRA, the UVF and the UDA—all of them. This exchange took place in public—namely, in front of the people who were having their baggage checked.
There then followed the interrogation. There was question after question. One of the questions involved the officer asking my constituent whether he had ever been in trouble with the police before. That indicates the nature of the interrogation. It seems to have been a fishing expedition and not the sort of interrogation that has been contemplated by the House.
It is all very well the Home Secretary feeling pained about having to introduce this legislation, but it would appear to be the pain of the gourmet forcing himself to swallow another oyster. We should remember that this legislation is being enforced by men who do not all have the standards that we expect.
The Special Branch officer emphasised that he was a police officer and that he could take my constituent back to the nick in Liverpool and hold him there for seven days. That is the power that we have given him and his colleagues to exercise responsibly, but I fear that it is

used all too often by Special Branch officers in Great Britain to annoy—perhaps not deliberately—and frustrate those who are travelling from Northern Ireland to this part of the United Kingdom about their everyday business.
The officer's excuse for the conduct I have described was that he was protecting England. This legislation was introduced immediately after the Birmingham atrocity and the Under-Secretary of State has referred to the seeking out of people who carry out terrorist activity, in that part of the United Kingdom. That is the purpose of this legislation. The provision is aimed at protecting one part of the United Kingdom, but surely it should exist to protect the whole of the United Kingdom against terrorists.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and other hon. Members are right to demand that the situation should be placed on a proper and regular basis. I wish to protest at the way in which people from Northern Ireland are being treated. They will not accept the situation without making their own protests. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary will ensure that Special Branch officers and members of Securicor will behave with respect to members of the public. It must be remembered that those personnel are there to protect citizens and to facilitate travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Mr. Fitt: I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but I wish to reinforce the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
I do not intend to deal in great detail with the objections raised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I wish to underline the fact that there is cause for complaint against the activities of Special Branch officers at ports.
I know personally many Special Branch officers in London and they are always very courteous and helpful. I do not wish to condemn any Special Branch officer because I appreciate that they undertake a difficult job. However, I wish to put before the House the story of what happened to a constituent of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). That man and two of his friends arrived in London on Tuesday of last week, intending to return home on Thursday evening by way of the Liverpool boat to


Belfast. They were stopped by Special Branch officers and brought in for questioning. If necessary, I will give the constituent's name to the Home Secretary, and I am sure the hon. Member for Down, North knows him. The person concerned is a professional man who owns four chemist shops in Northern Ireland, a foremost member of the pharmaceutical profession. I repeat that that man was arrested by the Special Branch and brought in for questioning, and with his friends was kept in custody until Sunday.
On arriving home from Westminster on Friday evening, I received a telephone call and consequently made inquiries seeking to obtain the man's release. What annoyed and angered me was that when I telephoned a civil servant who I thought would be able to help, he said "It is a difficult time of the week. It is Friday evening and the staff concerned will not be back until Monday morning." I did not regard that as a valid excuse. The three men concerned—men who have never been involved in terrorist activity—were expected to await the arrival of staff on the Monday morning.
I persisted in my inquiries and contacted the RUC in Northern Ireland. The RUC within a very short space of time, efficiently and effectively, checked the bona fides of the three men and relayed that information to the Special Branch in Liverpool. The result was that the three men were cleared of suspicion but had to remain in custody until Sunday morning. They then discovered that there was no boat to get them home on Sunday evening. They are married men and obviously their wives and children were very concerned.
Surely if such a procedure is to exist, it should be properly staffed so that all the relevant inquiries may be made. People should not have to depend on a skeleton force before identities can be checked. Therefore, the present situation should be examined by the Home Secretary.
11.15 p.m.
On the larger issue—I say this against the IRA as a terrorist organisation—most people who have been engaged in acts of terrorism in Britain have not come immediately from either Belfast or the Republic. I realise that that happened with the Price sisters and others, but

many who have been engaged in acts of terrorism have been resident in this country for many years. They were not imported from either the Republic or Northern Ireland into Great Britain. That is why the legislation is much too drastic and would affect and inconvenience many innocent people.

Mr. Kilfedder: In case there is any doubt about what I said earlier, I should like to point out that my criticism was against not the RUC but some Special Branch men operating in Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman has illustrated how proficient and able the RUC is.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 8, line 14, at end insert:
'(3A) When any question arises under this Act whether or not a person is exempted from the provisions of section 4, (orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland) or 5 of this Act, it shall lie on the person asserting it to prove that he is.'.
No. 46, in page 8, line 16, after '10', insert:
'and sections (orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland), (contributions towards acts of terrorism) and (information about acts of terrorism)'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 14

DURATION, EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF ACT

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 9, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) This Act shall expire six months after the date of its coming into force unless continued for a further period of not more than six months by an Order under this section.".
Although I am only now moving this amendment, there have already been a number of powerful and cogent speeches made in favour of it during the hours which have passed since four o'clock this afternoon. As might be expected, one of the most cogent, powerful and weighty speeches was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Throughout the day hon. Members have repeatedly said, "We must have this legislation, but we hate it. Bearing in mind that we hate it, we have made


it temporary." On an earlier amendment I suggested that the matter under discussion was a test of the sincerity of these protestations. This is an even sharper test. If hon. Members hate the legislation and put up with it only because it is temporary, they should make it as temporary as is reasonably possible.
How temporary is temporary? The French have a saying c'est seuletnent le provisoire qui dure—it is only the temporary which goes on. That happens in too many walks of life.
If we—not least my right hon. Friend—believe what we have been saying—that we are striving to hold a balance between security and civil liberty and to ensure that there shall not be arbitrary power in the hands of the Executive—we should be willing to require the Executive, when we give them these extraordinary and unpleasant powers, to come back and ask for the renewal of their mandate, and to do so frequently. We ought not to create a situation in which the Bill can continue without a renewal of the mandate for a longer period than its precedessor.
If at the end of six months it is found that the Bill is necessary, that it is working properly and is beneficial in operation, my right hon. Friend will have no difficulty in getting this House to renew his mandate. This House is a reasonable place. It acts along the lines of practicality almost all the time. However, the danger of these powers being used arbitrarily increases the longer they can be used without being accounted for. The essence of the rights of the citizen is the public accountability of the Executive for the way in which it uses the powers given by Parliament.
If the Home Secretary means all that he has said today, he cannot possibly resist the amendment. If he does so, then, without any disrespect to my right hon. Friend, we shall find room for doubt about whether he regards this sort of legislation, with its blanket powers, as objectionable as he claims.

Mr. Beith: A Liberal amendment is linked with that which is under discussion. It is not as far reaching, but it includes a six-month review. The Home Secretary said an hour or so ago that he was anxious that the powers in the Bill should be as temporary as possible, and

I think that that is the general view in the House. However, it is not generally understood outside, and I have had many representations from people concerned about civil liberties who increasingly believe that there is some intent to have permanent legislation. I have sought to reassure them, because I do not believe that this is the intention of the House or of the Home Secretary. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely true to himself. But when he says that he wishes the legislation to be temporary and to be seen to be temporary, I have to tell him that it is not so seen outside this House.
I do not expect the problem of terrorism to go away within six months. If anything, I am less optimistic than the Home Secretary about how long we shall be faced with this problem. I believe that we shall have problems of terrorism, small or large, for very many years. Some may not be associated with Northern Ireland and will not come within the ambit of this Bill. Even if we are successful beyond our wildest dreams in achieving a political settlement in Northern Ireland that is calculated to reduce terrorism, the settlement will be against the interests of some people and they might well use violent means in an attempt to destroy it.
The basis of this legislation is that it involves temporary provisions which are seen, at this moment, as being helpful to the authorities in dealing with terrorism as it manifests itself now. The nature of the proposals, the way in which they have been conceived and described as temporary during detailed discussion of their features, all bear out the fact that they would need to be re-assessed if terrorism continued for some time. However, the character of terrorism may change and other temporary provisions may be necessary. The nature of the legislation is impermanent so the procedure by which the House enacts it should make sure that it is temporary.
There are clear advantages in a six-month review. The last Bill was subject to a renewal order after six months and another after 12 months. At that stage, the Home Secretary made it clear that he would be seeking new legislation, which is what we are discussing now. One of the advantages of a six-month


review which might not have been apparent at that time is that we can draw attention to shortcomings in an Act's operation and point out features which ought to be amended after 12 months. The desirability of renewal can be challenged and hon. Members can point out shortcomings in areas where amendments are needed—even though they may not be sufficient justification for refusing renewal.
It might be supposed that this is unnecessary because after 12 months these matters could be drawn to the attention of the Home Secretary. But the pressure of business in this place is such that when legislation has to be reconsidered within a limited period, things such as I am referring to are not forgotten but are left on one side until it is almost too late to deal with them properly at a later stage.
The Home Secretary should not underestimate the advantages of a six-month review. I hope that he will therefore be sympathetic to the amendments.

Dr. Summerskill: The amendments would make the temporary provisions subject to renewal at least every six months rather than every 12 months as provided by the Bill. Under the 1974 Act the maximum renewal period is six

months, but that period is extended to 12 months by the Bill because the Bill offers the opportunity to consider in detail the form which temporary provisions legislation of this kind should take. The extensive consideration to which this Bill has been subjected was not possible with the 1974 legislation, which was passed in a state of gross emergency. The House has considered this Bill throughout all its stages in far more detail than was possible with the 1974 Act.
It would be rash to predict for how long temporary provisions of this kind will be necessary. Recent events have shown that it is unlikely that we shall be able to let the powers lapse in the very near future. The provisions are temporary, but as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, the problem of terrorism may not be so temporary. A renewal period of up to 12 months is therefore considered appropriate.
We hope that when the Bill is enacted it will be thought safe to operate 12-monthly renewal. The flexibility to renew the provisions for periods of less than 12 months is retained.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 105.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
[11.28 p.m.


Beith, A. J.
Lamond, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Bidwell, Sydney
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Canavan, Dennis
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Madden, Max
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cryer, Bob
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Noble, Mike
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Parry, Robert



Flannery, Martin
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Ian Mikado and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Robin Corbett.


Kilfedder, James
Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Alison, Michael
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Graham, Ted


Archer, Peter
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Henderson, Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dormand, J. D.
Hunter, Adam


Bates, Alf
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, James A.
James, David


Bishop, E. S.
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Judd, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carson, John
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Le Merchant, Spencer


Cartwright, John
Eyre, Reginald
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cocks. Michael (Bristol S)
George, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crawsha[...], Richard
Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)




McCartney, Hugh
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tinn, James


McCusker, H.
Reid, George
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Ward, Michael


Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watt, Hamish


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Welsh, Andrew


Mahon, Simon
Rowlands, Ted
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Marks, Kenneth
Shepherd, Colin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itches)
Spriggs, Leslie
Winterton, Nicholas


Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Woodall, Alec


Monro, Hector
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Woof, Robert


Moyle, Roland
Stoddart, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stradling Thomas, J.



Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Park, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret



Rathbone, Tim
Tierney, Sydney

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 49, in page 9, line 17, leave out from 'The' to end of line 21 and insert:
'provisions of—
sections 1 to 10 and sections (orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland), (contributions towards acts of terrorism) and (information about acts of terrorism) of this Act,
section 11 of this Act except in so far as it relates to orders under subsection (2)(a) or (b) below,
subsection (2)(c) below, and,
Schedules 1 to 3 to this Act'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we shall take Government Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54. We shall also take the following Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham):
No. 57, in page 9, line 36, at end insert:
'(3) This Act, and any order made under this section for the continuance in force or revival of any of its provisions, shall cease to have effect four years after the passing of this Act'.
We shall also take sub-amendment (a) to Amendment No. 57, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), leave out 'four' and insert 'two'

Mr. George Cunningham: I thank the Government for taking account in their amendment of the substance of the points I made in Committee, but I think they have lost some of the advantage of the particular way of doing it which I have proposed in Amendment No. 57.
First, it will mean that even if there is a need to retain these special powers for year after year after year, by the Government's method of dealing with it

we shall never have to have further legislation. If, for example, we need to have this kind of provision for a period of five or ten years, by the way in which the Government have done this job there will never be any need for the Government to come back to the House and to ask it to provide further legislation. It will always be possible to extend the powers merely by order. By my amendment, on the other hand, after four years—that figure could have been changed and extended if necessary—it would be necessary for the House, in legislative form—in Standing Committee and so on—to go through the subject again.
I accept that we do not want to have to legislate again every year on this subject. Some of my hon. Friends may object to that statement, but to legislate every year in present circumstances is quite unnecessary. I also think that, if Draconian powers of this nature—and everyone agrees that they are Draconian—are to remain in force for many years, every few years the House ought to go through its legislative process, and not only the renewal process which is provided by the Government's way of doing it.
Even now, I ask the Government to reconsider that point in the remaining stages of the Bill in the other place, and if the Government are not minded to do it, I would ask the Members of the other place to give it very serious consideration.
I accept that my amendment is defective, in that if the present Bill were allowed to lapse in toto, without exception, automatically the 1974 Act would again come into force, and it would have


been necessary, therefore, to correct my amendment in order to save Clause 15 of the Bill, so that we did not automatically revive the previous Act in allowing the present one to lapse. But, subject to that change only, my method of doing it is a much more parliamentary one than that proposed by the Government, and I am sorry that they cannot agree to make that small change in the substantive move which they have agreed to make.

Mr. Mikardo: The arguments just used by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) were powerful and convincing. They become, by the laws of algebra, twice as powerful and twice as convincing if the temporariness which my hon. Friend seeks, without recourse to the legislation, is made twice as temporary, that is to say, is halved in length. It is on those grounds that my hon. Friends and I have ventured to put down the sub-amendment to my hon. Friend's amendment.

Dr. Summerskill: The Government's amendments are designed to ensure that the powers in the Bill could not be reactivated by order after a long period during which the Act lay dormant but remained on the statute book.
We have looked carefully at the drafting of Clause 14, particularly in response to a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). He expressed concern that the drafting of the existing Clause 14 creates the possibility that any powers in the Act which were allowed to lapse could be reactivated at any time in the future—for instance, even after an interval of 50 years—for a period of not more than 12 months at a time, provided that the Act was still on the statute book.
It can be argued that, if at some distant time in the future, powers of the kind conferred in the Bill are thought necessary, the correct way to proceed will be by a new Bill rather than by reactivation of the present Bill. We agree with this, but it is also essential to retain the flexibility to reactivate the powers fairly urgently if the need to do so arises. This is not only to ensure that prompt action can be taken if events require it but also to avoid the position in which,

although there was no immediate need for such powers, it was difficult to dispense with them because one could not be satisfied that there would be no further urgent need for them.
The first of these amendments, therefore, includes in the list of temporary provisions which must be renewed, at least every 12 months, the reactivation power itself. Thus, while the flexibility of renewing each of the powers separately is retained, the House will be able to make a decision at least every 12 months on whether it is right to retain the power to reactivate the Bill in the future should any of its provisions be allowed to lapse.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 9, line 24, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (2)(a) below'.

No. 53, in page 9, line 26, leave out
'provisions of those sections and Schedules'
and insert 'said provisions'.
No. 54, in page 9, line 28, leave out 'section' and insert
'paragraph or paragraph (c) below'—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Does the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) wish to move formally Amendment No. 57?

Mr. George Cunningham: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then Amendment No. 57 falls.

Schedule 2

EXCLUSION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 11, line 10, after 'treated "insert—
'(a) as ordinarily resident in Great Britain'.
No. 60, in line 11, leave out from 'Act' to at 'in line 13 and insert
'or
(b) as ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland for the purpose of the exemption in section (orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland) (3)(a) of this Act'.
No. 61, in line 18, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 62, in line 19, leave out 'that exemption' and insert
each of those exemptions'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 12, line 1, leave out 'sub-paragraph' and insert 'paragraph 2'.
This is a drafting amendment. The reference in paragraph 3 to sub-paragraph (c)(ii) in Schedule 2 should be a reference to paragraph 2(c)(ii) and the amendment so provides.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 12 leave out lines 7 to 22.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Schedule 3

SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS FOR SECTIONS 1 TO 10

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 14, line 15, leave out 'or 8' and insert
'8, (contributions towards acts of terrorism) or (information about acts of terrorism)'.
No. 69, in line 16, after '8', insert
'(contributions towards acts of terrorism) or (information about acts of terrorism)'.
No. 70, in line 22, leave out or '8' and insert
'8, (contribution towards acts of terrorism) or (information about acts of terrorism)'.
No. 71, in page 16, line 15 at end add—

'Scheduled offences

8. Offences under sections 8, (contributions towards acts of terrorism) and (information about acts of terrorism) of this Act shall be scheduled offences for the purposes of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and accordingly in Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act there shall be inserted after the paragraph 13 inserted there by paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975 the following paragraph:—

"Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976

13A. Offences under the following provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976—

(a) section 8 (breach of exclusion orders);
(b) section (contributions towards acts of terrorism) (contributions towards acts of terrorism);

(c) section (information about acts of terrorism) (information about acts of terrorism)."'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I shall not at this hour detain the House long, but I am bound to say that quite a small number of hon. Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading. It would have taken only a minuscule concession on the part of the Government to the views which we then expressed to give us an excuse for not voting against the Bill on Third Reading. We should have been happy to find such an excuse.
However, throughout the Committee stage and the Report stage there has not been a scintilla of a concession towards the views which I and my hon. Friends expressed during Second Reading and which led us to vote against the Bill. There was certainly not a concession during the Committee stage because, by a brilliant piece of legerdemain on the part of the Selection Committee, no hon. Member who voted against the Second Reading was put on to the Committee, so there was not likely to be much change there.
Today we waited with an open mind to see whether there would be something—the smallest crust of bread—which would give us the opportunity to change our view. We have not had it.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has given the House the opportunity to have a short debate on Third Reading.
I wonder whether the Minister would kindly turn her attention, if not necessarily now, between now and the transmission of the Bill to another place, to a point to which I drew the Home Secretary's attention informally earlier this evening. I am referring to the apparent contradiction between the earlier part of Clause 8, which makes it an offence for anyone served with an exclusion order to stay in the country or not to fulfil it, and the right apparently given to such a person under Clause 6 to delay for 96 hours. There seems to be a serious contradiction.
Clause 8 says,
If—
(a) a person subject to an exclusion order fails to comply with the order at a time after he has been served with notice of the making of the order
it is an offence.
However, Clause 6 makes it at the same time possible for him to stay here for 96 hours to fulfil certain opportunities for appeal.
I have put the matter to the Home Secretary. I understand that he was to take advice about it. There seems to be some serious misdrafting. I do not expect the hon. Lady, unless she has received a note from her advisers, to answer the point now, but I hope that she will reassure us that the matter will be considered carefully between now and the passage in another place to ensure that at least there is not a contradiction.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: There is one detailed consequence of the form in which we have amended the Bill today. When we passed new Clause 3, the one relating to the withholding of information about terrorist offences, the question arose whether it would apply in Northern Ireland. The Minister said that it would not. I ask hon. Members to ask themselves the question, who says so?
The difference between clauses which apply in Northern Ireland and those which do not is defined in Clause 16(2):
Part I of this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
So the question whether new Clause 3 will apply or not in Northern Ireland will depend on whether or not it is put in Part I. But because it is a new clause and not an amendment to an existing clause, nowhere is booked for it, whether in Part I or anywhere else.
I accept that those who cobble the thing together afterwards have plenty of evidence in the amendments which we have passed to show that the new clause

should go outside Part I, but the House has not decided that. If anyone wanted to stop it applying to Northern Ireland, I do not know how he would procedurally go about it.
This curious situation has arisen because of the way in which Clause 16(2) is drafted. Instead of specifying the clauses which will not apply to Northern Ireland, in which case an amendent could have been made to add a reference to the new clause, the draftsman has said that Part I shall not extend to Northern Ireland. I ask the Home Secretary to bring this point to the attention of parliamentary draftsmen so that they do not use that drafting technique in future. It prejudges a decision of the House which the House has not taken.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but it would be discourteous if I did not say that I will note carefully the point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) about Clause 8, which relates also to some extent to Clause 7. I will also take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Not only in fact but in effect, in my undertaking, we carried the principle of new Clause 3. We shall look not only at the other points which were raised but also at the question where it could best go into the Bill and whether the Lords would wish to change that.
I think that our proceedings have made it worth while to re-legislate on this matter in somewhat less hurried circumstances than those of a year ago. I thank hon. Members and my hon. Friends for the constructive and good-tempered way in which the debate has been conducted almost throughout.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 11.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[11.53 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Bishop, E. S.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradford, Rev Robert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crawshaw, Richard


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cryer, Bob


Bates, Alf
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Beith, A. J.
Carson, John
Deakins, Eric


Biggs-Davison, John
Cartwright, John
Dempsey, James




Doig, Peter
McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted


Dormand, J. D.
MacCormick, Iain
Shepherd, Colin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCusker, H.
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Evans, John (Newton)
Madden, Max
Stradling Thomas, J.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Eyre, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


George, Bruce
Millen, Bruce
Tierney, Sydney


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Tinn, James


Graham, Ted
Molyneaux, James
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Monro, Hector
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Ward, Michael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watt, Hamish


Henderson, Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Oakes, Gordon
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hunter, Adam
Park, George
Whitlock, William


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Winterton, Nicholas


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rathbone, Tim
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Judd, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Woodall, Alec


Kilfedder, James
Reld, George
Woof, Robert


Knight, Mrs Jill
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Cherley)



Le Marchant, Spencer
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. David Stoddart and


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, William (Londonderry)





NOES


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Wigley, Dafydd


Bidwell, Sydney
Litterick, Tom



Canavan, Dennis
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Parry, Robert
Mr. Ron Thomas and


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Stan Thorne.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD (FINANCE) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) is out of order.

12.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to make sure that all the matters raised in the wide-ranging and valuable discussions in Committee on this Bill are cleared up.
I undertook to give further consideration to an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and his hon. Friends, inserting in Clause 2(4)(c), after "statement" the words
reporting on the overall financial position of the Board".

I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on this matter and I would like merely to put on record why such an amendment is, in my view, superfluous.
I fully agree that it is only right that the House should be given all the information it needs for proper consideration of any order that may be laid to increase the Government's contribution to the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme. The state of the Board's finances at that time would naturally be an important part of such consideration. That is why the Bill specifically provides in Clause 2(4)(b) that the Secretary of State should review the
overall financial position of the Board
before laying a draft Order. Subsection (4)(c) further requires the Secretary of State to explain in the statement accompanying the Order the considerations which had led him to conclude that the Order should be made, including
references to the result of his review"—
that is, the review of the overall financial position of the Board that has been carried out under subsection (4)(b).
It is quite clear, therefore, that the object desired by hon. Members will be achieved by the wording of the Bill as it stands. It was a source of encouragement to me to see hon. Members on both sides welcoming this Bill in Committee. I should like to remind hon. Members briefly of the purpose of the three clauses of the Bill.
Clause I increases the Board's borrowing powers. I explained in Committee the reason why progress with the plan for coal investment made this necessary. The coal industry examination only just over a year ago recommended 42 million tons of new capacity. The Board has already approved schemes which will provide for 12 million tons.
The Board's new deep-boring programme, now over two years old, is up to schedule and currently adding to workable reserves at a rate of 500 million tons a year or four times the current output. The fact that the Board has this much proven work ahead of it will justify its long-term investment. It is only right that new discoveries of coal are given as much publicity as important finds of other indigeneous energy resources such as oil and gas.
I will not dwell on the provisions of Clause 2 except to say that I think it has been generally agreed that in the present economic climate the contribution of £18 million a year towards the deficiency in the mineworkers' pension scheme is a handsome one and is another proof of the Government honouring their undertakings in the coal industry examination.
Clause 3 provides a sensible extension of power to assist the National Coal Board with stocks. It was said in Committee that the right place for the CEGB coal stocks was as close as possible to its own boilers. This is the sensible stocking strategy that this clause encourages. By keeping the stocks moving away from the pit head, double handling is avoided and miners have the encouragement of seeing the coal move to the main customers.
More eminent spokesmen than I have recently been talking of an end to recession. When this happens it is essential for the coal industry that it is not caught unprepared for increased demand.
We are anxious to establish market possibilities both at home and abroad. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now arranged for 20th February the meeting of which he spoke in the Second Reading debate—that is a meeting where the Electricity Council, the CEGB, the NCB and the unions of both industries can discuss the relationship of coal production and demand to electricity generation.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving the assurance he promised in Committee as far as Clause 2 is concerned, when we explained the problem of reporting the overall financial position of the pension fund.
I would also like to congratulate him and, indeed, the NCB on the fact that the negotiations regarding the possible closure of the Langwith Colliery are still taking place and that the overtime ban has been postponed for further negotiations to take place.
The Under-Secretary pointed out that this was an important Bill. He is right. It is a short Bill but an important one. It is over six weeks since the Committee stage. While I do not wish to detain the House at this very late hour, I must mention the fact that a number of matters have arisen in that six-week period which are entirely germane to the Bill and the clauses that we discussed.
As recently as today we have had a Report from the Price Commission about the coal trade. Obviously this would not be a moment to discuss that in detail, but the Under-Secretary will recall that in that Report it was suggested, as reported in today's edition of the Financial Times, that
The Commission also points out that the allocation system used by the National Coal Board at the time of that inquiry tended to discourage competition. In any new system of allocation, the needs of consumers and the effect on prices should be taken into account.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give us the Governments view on that Report, as Clause 3, as he pointed out, deals with stocks, and the very high level of stocks is to some extent determined by the falling consumption to which he referred. While the domestic market may be small, it is a significant market. Obviously one


would hope that the Board is able to sell competitively against other fuels in this market.
Another point which has arisen since the Committee stage concerns the leaks in the Press relating to what I think the Under-Secretary was telling us a moment ago—namely, the decisions which are being taken by the Government and the Board relating to oil substitution in power stations. In a reply to a Question earlier this week, the Under-Secretary told the House that the switch from oil to coal was continuing at a rapid pace. My hon. Friends and I do not quarrel with that at all. However, reports are circulating in the Press at present which lead us to believe that the NCB is to have total control over all import policy concerning the generating boards—that is, that it is intended to remove from the generating boards the powers which they now enjoy and which have led to contracts—long-term contracts in many cases—and to put that power into the hands of the NCB.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary a question which is entirely relevant to Clause 3. What effect will that have upon the long-term contracts which the generating boards have entered into, many of which will go far beyond this year? Is it the Government's intention now to direct the generating boards to burn some indigenous coal even though there may be contracts for importation which go on into the future? What action does the Under-Secretary intend to take about that? Again related to this point, there is also the rumour that the Government intend, by coal substitution for oil, to save about £250 million on the balance of payments. The Opposition would welcome such a plan. Indeed, in the reports which have been circulated individual power stations have been named. Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether these reports are fact?
It would be far better tonight when dealing with this important Bill, which we shall not see again, to be able to confirm to everyone present and those outside the House that these discussions are taking place and that the actions to which I have referred are in the Government's mind.
The Bill provides the industry with a borrowing limit of £1,400 million. I am

delighted to know that there are now 21 drilling rigs looking for new coal in Britain. That is only a dozen or so fewer than those looking for oil in the North Sea. I am delighted to think that major new discoveries of coal are being announced so frequently. We are now moving into an era unlike anything which most of those who have been in the House for 10 or 15 years have ever seen, an era in which we find coal being discovered in seams which are thick and easily worked. This will be a contribution to the economy every bit as important as anything that will ever be found in the North Sea.
However, I sound one note of caution. At the moment coal enjoys a 10 per cent. price advantage over oil, but during the recess, when I and some of my colleagues visited oil-producing countries in the Middle East as guests of OPEC, we saw in Kuwait the largest oilfield in the world. The Burgan oilfield has a potential as great as that of the whole of the North Sea put together—namely, about 6 million or 7 million barrels a day. That oil comes out of the ground at a cost of 28 cents a barrel. North Sea oil is coming out of the North Sea at approximately six dollars a barrel.
It is no secret that the National Union of Mineworkers and the coal industry as a whole keep a careful watch on the OPEC price, but what would worry me—and it should worry us all—is a situation in which the oil-producing cartel slashed its price. Such action would maroon on a rock the North Sea operations and the coal industry. When we consider investment and the other matters which we have discussed in detail in Committee it is essential to recognise that there is that risk. I welcome the suggestion to build a floor price under these investments, be they our oil in the North Sea or the coal industry. The fact is that the risk exists.
Against that risk we must always realise that coal offers us security of supply, strategic security and a great advantage as regards our balance of payments. I want, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, to see a well-paid, thoroughly efficient and modern industry. It is only by having such an industry that we shall be able to provide the right career prospects for those in it and those joining it. It is only by achieving that


standard that we shall be able to recruit the sort of manpower that will be needed to exploit the resources to which I have referred.
We welcome the Bill if, as part of the continuing story of development, it provides a basis for a modern and efficient industry. We recognise that the coal industry will always have its critics, but we realise the problems which now face Britain and the nation's need to be as independent as possible of imported energy. We recognise that the Bill represents an important step, and for that reason we support it.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Any hon. Member who rises at this hour of the night must do so with hesitation. When that Member has been unable to contribute to the earlier stages of a Bill for various parliamentary reasons he approaches the task with temerity.
It is with temerity that I raise certain matters which I know will receive a great deal of sympathy from the Minister. I draw attention to the financial obligations which I think the Government should assume and which through them the National Coal Board should assume, obligations which have been widely discussed in earlier debates but for which, regrettably, there appears to be no acceptable provision in the Bill. I refer to compensation for sufferers from pneumoconiosis and silicosis and for the dependants—whether the sufferers are still alive or whether they had the great misfortune to die before 26th January 1970.
I do not wish to rehearse old arguments in discussing this Bill, but the matters which I am seeking to raise must be considered when we are dealing with mining communities and their representatives.
In 1973—one of the best ever years for the coal industry—there were 367 deaths—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I have already referred to a new clause which has been ruled out of order because it does not relate to the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to introduce that subject on this Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall relate my remarks entirely to the Bill, which relates to the financial obligations of the National Coal Board. I am seeking to use the pneumoconiosis statistics as an illustration of the shortcomings of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. We are now on Third Reading and we must confine ourselves to what is in this measure.

Mr. Kinnock: Obviously at this time of the morning I do not want to enter into a procedural wrangle about what is or is not in the Bill, but if we are to give it a Third Reading it has to be judged on its merits in terms of the provision made in the Board's finances, which have a direct link with the Title of the Bill. It is of great consequence that inadequate provision is being made in the respect of the matters with which I am seeking to deal. I hope that on that basis I shall be allowed to make a brief contribution to this Third Reading debate.
As I was saying, 1973 was a "good" year in terms of accidents but there were 367 deaths from pneumoconiosis—more than one a day. There were shortcomings in the provision made for those affected. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Wilson) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—as well as thousands of people connected with the coal industry—believe that there should be more generous provision and more attention paid to this problem.
Excluded from the present provision are those commuted cases who were blackmailed up to the late 1940s into accepting abysmally low sums as compensation for contracting the diseases. Those sums do not match the sums awarded under the tripartite agreement in 1974. A simple arithmetical calculation could be made to show the large difference in the sums paid to those many tragic cases and the sums paid under the 1974 agreement, and those sums subtracted from the amounts now paid and the residue paid to sufferers and their dependants, many of whom have spent years nursing close relatives through painful and tragic diseases.


A further anomaly relates to the travesty of natural justice suffered by women who were unfortunate enough to become widowed before 26th January 1974 and who are treated differently from others. The warrant of indemnity that these women—and they are not simple women but politically sophisticated women—were asked to sign was an act of discrimination because it precluded them from any further claims. This was perpetrated on women who, having lost their loved ones, had just come through the valley of deepest tragedy. Much more attention should be paid to those cases to enable the qualifying period under the 1974 scheme to be shifted back to take in the period of qualification for compensation for pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that, on behalf of those who have commuted, we do not expect to receive any sympathy or practical help from the Opposition. As secretary of the miners group I have said before, and I repeat, that our Government will realise that we are serious. It is time that extra provision was made for the National Coal Board to do something about those commuted and other cases, particularly the pre-26th January 1970 widows. I emphasise that our opponents are not necessarily the Opposition. We are pleading and demanding justice for those people from our own Government.

Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friend is right. The "pre-1970 widows," as they are becoming classified, are a tough group of ladies who will not be put off by the provisions in the 1974 agreement, the platitudes of lawyers or the sympathy of myself, my hon. Friends and the Government. In Wales and elsewhere—certainly in South Wales—they are forming themselves into a flint-tipped wedge of protest which will make a considerable difference to the way in which we consider the right to compensation under the 1974 agreement. But, not to get out of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I understand since coming into the Chair that the hon. Gentleman is tending to stray rather wide of the Question. He is now suggestinc, how certain provisions should be altered. This is Third Reading. He must stick to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: I want to dig myself back into order in the context of the Bill and to restrict my remarks to its financial provisions.
In Clause 2 justifiable provision is made for the extension of pension schemes. Many people who live in coal mining communities have an imagination and generosity which goes far beyond what they will receive week by week from the National Coal Board. Anyone with experience of a mining constituency or community knows this to be a self-evident truth. Consideration extends not only to the commuted claims and to those of the pre-1970 widows but to those who are excluded from the provisions because they worked in the industry for less than 10 years. They need the closest possible examination—particularly those who worked in the anthracite fields and contracted pneumoconiosis whilst working in the industry for a relatively short time. Many sufferers from bronchitis and emphysema, who are still working in the industry or who retired before these provisions were brought in, should, by any definition of justice or logic, be in receipt of the more advanced compensation which is available not only for working in the industry but for contracting a killing disease. I make an additional plea for those 10-year men, and we shall return to the demands of emphysemics and bronchitics.
I know there is a great deal of sympathy for these people, but it now boils down to a matter of cash. We ask for a major advance from the money already made available to the sufferers of the inevitable consequences of coal mining. Full and proper compensation should be paid to all sufferers—those who have the disease and those who have nursed them through it and lost normal marital relations, earning capacity and all other rights and privileges which comfortable people like us take for granted.
There are many other issues, including stockpiling, imports and pensions, which every hon. Member from a mining constituency would like to raise, but the burning issue in the industry since the 1974 agreement, especially in the South Wales valleys, is how we are to treat the people whose lives have been blighted by pneumoconiosis and silicosis, like my own family, in jobs they had to do because there was no other way they could earn


a living. In the many coal mining homes and especially in widowed homes the Government will be judged on the way in which they treat the victims of the most treacherous and dangerous of industries.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) in relation to the diseases he mentioned and to pay tribute to those who have worked and suffered in the coal industry. In dealing with the problem of the medical conditions these men have sustained, no Government can be too generous and I am disappointed that we have not been able to discuss the new clause that was ruled out of order.
Generally, I welcome the purposes of the Bill. I agree with what has been said about the price of coal, oil and other surces of energy being interlocked. The action of the OPEC countries in increasing the price of oil may have done much to give the coal industry a new lease of life. If the expenditure envisaged in the Bill is used to find new sources of coal, everybody will be pleased, regardless of where it is found.
I want to be brief because of the lateness of the hour. My party has always maintained that the coal industry in Scotland has a future, and we included a production target of 12 million tons in our election manifesto. The Under-Secretary recently made a speech in which he suggested that we had dropped that target. I can assure him that we have not.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does the hon. Member not realise that no Scottish colliery is economically viable? If his party achieves its aim of separation from the United Kingdom, how would the jobs in the Scottish coal industry be maintained?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I hope to deal with these matters in my speech. If, as the hon. Member maintains, the Scottish industry is not viable—and I do not necessarily agree with him—then when cheaper sources of coal are found, for example at Selby, the NCB, on a British basis, would be under a great temptation to accept the hon. Member's con-

tention and to rationalise the Scottish industry out of existence.
If one looks at the figures of how the Scottish industry has been dealt with over the years and the effect of NCB policies, one is shaken. In 1965, there were 48,000 wage earners in Scottish collieries. By June 1974, the number had fallen to 24,400.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Would it not be fair also to compare the Scottish coal industry as it exists in the nationalised British context with the Scottish coal industry as it was under the capitalist coal owners? Would the hon. Gentleman care to give the comparable figures for wages, productivity and so on?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is not for me to justify what the capitalist coal owners did in the past. My party is opposed to what they did in many instances.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: No.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Since these owners have disappeared, to be replaced by the National Coal Board, it is proper to consider the actions of the Board in reducing the work force in Scotland over that period. It may have done the same in other areas, but that does not mean that if the industry is run on a British basis it will automatically guarantee the jobs of Scottish miners.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This is the last time I shall give way.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the reduction in manpower for the Scottish coalfields where there was a fall from about 48,000 to about 24,000. The output per manshift for the Scottish fields, mainly due to geological conditions, has been much lower than in the North Derbyshire coalfield where I worked for 21 years. Under Lord Robens the NCB ravaged the manpower levels in the coalfields generally in the United Kingdom. However, thanks to the efforts of the National Union of Mineworkers, it did not savage the Scottish coalfields to the same extent that it savaged the profitable North Derbyshire field. There the reduction in manpower was from 38,000 to 12,500. In other words, in spite


of the difference in productivity, Scotland did not fare as badly in this respect. That was because of the efforts of the miners in North Derbyshire, North Nottinghamshire and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. But for their action the Scottish coalfields might have been obliterated.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: We have subsidised Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The NCB pulverised the North Derbyshire miners and it has done the same, to a lesser extent, to the Scottish miners. That shows that it is a vain hope to expect the NCB, on a British basis, to have a human heart.
The increasing oil prices have improved the outlook for coal in all parts of Britain. One of the primary purposes of the Bill concerns the stocking of coal. In 1972 in Scotland coal had about 35 per cent. of the energy market, oil had 50 per cent., natural gas 5 per cent. and nuclear-generated electricity 5 per cent.
The South of Scotland Electricity Board is jointly financed and planned with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, even though they each maintain autonomous control. The SSEB's plans for extending nuclear generation lead to the assumption that if consumption does not rise—and it has in some instances fallen over the last year—the nuclear expansion could be at the expense of other fuels.
I do not think that anyone would object to oil, which is a relatively expensive form of energy, not being consumed in power stations. It is the worst possible use of oil. Therefore, oil consumption in power stations will be hit by the increased production of electricity by nuclear generation, particularly if consumption does not keep pace with the increased production. I fear that the market for coal, which I consider has to play an important role in the Scottish scene, would be hit.
If the coal-burning stations of the SSEB are eliminated in favour of nuclear generating stations, the stocking provisions in the Bill will be made valueless. Has the Minister given consideration to the impact of the SSEB's nuclear generating policies on the future of the coal

industry? I know that there are negotiations currently on that matter.
I understand that there is a danger that the number of Scottish collieries might be reduced to about six or so hard-core pits during the next few years. There is a rumour—I ask for an assurance from the Minister that it is incorrect—that the Ayrshire pits will be taken out. According to reports, the Fallin pit in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is due for closure. I hope that the Minister will repudiate that rumour.
Has consideration been given by the National Coal Board in Scotland to the deposits of 70 million tons of high quality coking coal in Ayrshire? I understand that a shaft has been sunk, but the NCB does not wish to develop the seams because of the intended rundown of the steel industry.

Mr. Canavan: What is the source of these rumours?

Mr. Wilson: I am putting these questions to the Minister, and I hope that he will repudiate the reports. If he does, I am sure that the employees in the Fallin colliery will be delighted to hear what he says.

Mr. Canavan: Mr. Canavan rose—

Mr. Wilson: I am dealing with high quality coking coal—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is customary in the House that when an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member and raises a matter concerning his constituency, as a matter of courtesy he gives way to the hon. Member who represents that constituency when he seeks to intervene. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) refuses to give way. Surely that is a breach of etiquette, if not a breach of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has made his point. It is a matter of opinion but not for the Chair. An hon. Member need not give way if he does not desire to do so. This is not a point of order.

Mr. Wilson: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I said earlier that it was not my intention


to give way again. I was asking a series of questions directed to the Minister.
I ask the Minister to expand on the role he expects the Scottish Division of the NCB to play in investment in the search for the location of coal.

12.44 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: As a certain amount of the finance authorised by the Bill will be directly or indirectly used in developing Selby coalfield, I should like to use the occasion to get from the Under-Secretary of State a progress report on that project. It is the only project on which I should care to dilate in the presence of so many expert mining Members of Parliament.
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when we can expect the results of the public inquiry? It met in early spring last year. I gave evidence in April. It seems to me that it should have reported by now. Since the inquiry ended, all information has dried up. In answer to questions from my constituents about the future of the area, we have been told, quite naturally, to await the outcome of the inquiry. That is not unreasonable, but it is worrying to a community waiting to hear about the considerable changes which are to take place there.
When the findings are published, I hope that the Government will be in a position to give the maximum information, for information is what we lack. I give notice of one or two questions which will be put to the Government as soon as the report is published. The Chief Executive of the Selby District Council today put this question to me:
Will the Goverment set up a Joint Consultative Committee for the area of the new Selby Coalfield upon which would be represented the North Yorkshire County Council, the Selby District Council, and other bodies who have a direct interest in all aspects of this new development, in view of the good work done by similar bodies in other parts of the country following the construction of major projects such as power stations?
I think that is an admirable idea. We need a focus for information, for ideas and for questions.
At the moment, no one knows whom to ask about anything. If it is about roads, it is the county council; if it is about housing, it is the district council; if it is about compensation, it is the

NCB; if it is about flooding, it is the water board. Altogether, we are in a fairly confused situation there. When there is a special situation which concerns not just an ordinary mine but one which will dominate an entire area and add a tremendous population, special treatment is needed of the sort I have mentioned. I commend that idea to the Minister.
Another problem which still worries people very much, and will continue to do so, is housing. Up to 2,000 new houses will be needed to house miners and their families in the new coalfield. Some miners will buy their own houses but most of them will be renting them.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this relevant to Third Reading? Surely it is not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I might comment that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) is getting a little wide of the substance of the Bill. I am sure that he will now bring himself back to the main theme.

Sir P. Bryan: I am doing so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason I am bringing up the whole question of housing is that we fear that the Selby District Council, which is very small, will be required to finance this enormous housing effort, which is quite out of keeping with its size. We are saying that the project should be financed by the NCB. Whether it is or not, some special arrangement, such as that applied to a new town, simply must be made. It is not possible for the present ratepayers to pay for the burden of this vast new housing effort through the rates.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the landlords and landowners in the Selby area are scared stiff that they will not get enough compensation when we start mining coal? Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman's party scared stiff that, when we start to develop Selby for the benefit of the British economy, with the introduction of miners and their wives into that area, there will be fewer Tory votes and more Labour votes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair must ensure that we keep on the right rails. Probably "tramways" would be more appropriate in this case. The


Bill is narrowly drawn. Hon. Members must not stray away from what is written into the Bill.

Sir P. Bryan: I shall leave the Under-Secretary to answer the point about compensation. He will no doubt tell us what has happened to the Government's committee which has been meeting for four years now to decide the basis of compensation. Naturally we are interested to hear its findings. I understand that they are due at any moment.
Finally, there is the question of subsidence and flooding at Selby. At this moment my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), in whose constituency the Selby coalfield also lies, is waiting for a reply to a letter to the Under-Secretary regarding the recent flooding. This constitutes entirely new evidence on the danger of flooding, on a scale not seen since 1947. The question is whether the pillar which is at the moment to be under the cathedral, should be extended to cover the whole of the town, because of the flooding danger.

Mr. Alec Woodall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chief executive of the Selby District Council has received a reply from the chairman of the Yorkshire Water Authority as to the reason for the recent flooding?

Sir P. Bryan: A reply may or may not have been received. I have brought this up as a result of a conversation I had this morning with the chief executive, so I assume that he has not had a satisfactory reply.
That is all I have to say on this subject at the moment, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to deal with those points in his reply.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. Loan Evans: Those of us who are concerned with the coal pits in Scotland and in Wales realise what a great benefit the Selby coalfield will be to the finances of the National Coal Board. That is why it is utter nonsense for the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) to be talking, by implication, of a separate coal board for Scotland. I hope that colleagues from Wales will not think in terms of a separate coal board for Wales, because it is not wanted by the miners.
A great development in Britain has been that, instead of the miners organising themselves on the basis of their area pits, they are now organised on an all-British basis. If there had not been public ownership of the coal industry, I doubt whether private enterprise would have kept one pit open in Wales today, especially when we know the geology of the mines. It is important, therefore, that we should organise this industry on an all-British basis.
There has been a transformation in the coal industry in the last two years, and we can look forward throughout Britain to a coal industry with greater harmony, security and prosperity in the years ahead, after the unhappy chapter of events that preceded the General Election in February 1974. This Government might not have been elected had it not been for the foolish way in which the Conservative Government tried to deal with the problems in the coalmines.
This is the second Bill which we have had on this subject in this Parliament. The previous Bill which became an Act endorsed the anticipated compensation scheme for sufferers of pneumoconiosis and their widows. I do not want to dwell on it for too long, but this is an opportunity for Back Benchers from Welsh and Scottish constituencies to deal with this matter which is causing grave concern among the mining community.
The Government previously backed the scheme to the extent of £100 million. The scheme is well under way. I understand that over 50,000 claims have been received and that many thousands of applications have been dealt with. The Government's action in this regard is deeply appreciated by the coalmining community.
However, the fact that benefits have been paid has made many people in the mining community more aware of certain anomalies. I know that my colleagues who have worked in the coalfields are familiar with the problems. We have a great mining group in this House and I should like to pay tribute to it. Some of my hon. Friends have raised this matter on a number of occasions and I realise that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has also worked at the coalface and therefore looks at the problem sympathetically.
Although, as a nation, we are going through a period where there is great demand for restraint in public spending and a mounting campaign for cuts in public expenditure, I hope that the Government, when considering the financial provision they will make for the National Coal Board, will look seriously at the anomalies which arise in the Act.
I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). There are two main categories. The first category concerns pneumoconiosis sufferers employed in the coal industry before 5th July 1948 who, because of the workmen's compensation payments, had their benefit commuted. I am in possession of a mass of correspondence, and I shall quote one or two examples. Mrs. Neale is organising a committee in South Wales and I was privileged to arrange for a lobby of the widows of pneumoconiosis sufferers to come here. They met my colleagues from the mining group and many of my hon. Friends. I have a shoal of correspondence.
One lady wrote to Mrs. Neale saying,
I received £300 in December, 1943. The gentleman who brought the cash told me that if I didn't take the money then maybe we would never have the offer again.
That illustrates the arm-twisting which took place before the industry was brought into public ownership.
I shall not mention names, but the letter goes on to say,
Mr. W … died on 8th March, 1974 (after a terrible illness).
I am not making a complaint on behalf of those who are receiving benefit. The Government have given £100 million. Indeed, they have done a tremendous job. However, this widow can see someone living near her whose husband has not suffered to anything like the extent that she and her husband suffered and yet she has to be content with £300 whereas the person who lives near her may be getting £6,000 or more.
I shall quote from a letter from a person in Abercynon which is in my constituency. The letter reads,
I was certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis on 4th June, 1948"—
that was before the National Coal Board really got going—

and because of that I had to finish in the colliery. After being unemployed for a while I was issued with a green disabled person card, which I still have today, for light work out in the open. I then had a job in a factory. After I had been there a while I had my compensation stopped because I earned three shillings and three pence too much over my rate.
That is the type of case with which we have to deal.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: I share the feelings that my hon. Friend expresses. Would he allow me to put on record our appreciation of what the Labour Government have done? In all their years in power, the Tories did nothing like it. If the Scottish nationalists have their way, there will be no chance of doing anything for the people for whom we feel compassion.

Mr. Evans: I agree entirely. My hon. Friend, who is secretary of the miners' group in the House, has spoken about this matter in Committee, and I know that he and the rest of my hon. Friends feel deeply about it. I pay tribute to the Labour Government. The widows and those receiving commuted claims do not begrudge what these beneficiaries get, but they wonder whether that magnanimity could be extended to them. As with any social benefits, a line has to be drawn and those the wrong side of it want the same treatment as the others.
Another letter from the shoal I have received says:
My dad died four years ago. He worked nearly 50 years underground. He had 75 per cent. dust, but years ago took £350. My mother does not get a weekly pension after my father.
The mother is 88. There are many such letters. A big campaign is building up. Perhaps we have strayed a little from the strict subject matter of the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will realise the depth of feeling which exists on this issue.
The miners' group has raised this matter many times. The original scheme was drawn up by the NCB and the NUM and they have done a good job for those who have received the benefit. But I hope that we shall also consider those who feel a sense of injustice because they have been left out. That would create a better spirit in the mining industry and ensure that the industry, which is going from strength to strength, partly because


of international conditions, can be rid of this sense of injustice.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: A decade ago the coal industry was considered almost expendable and the oil and nuclear lobbies were euphoric. Until about 1970, more and more cheap energy was pouring into our countries, while coal was rapidly being run down. In Wales, between 1964 and 1970, one pit was closed every seven weeks.
But that euphoria has now been blown away by the bitter winds of reality and we realise how grossly over-optimistic were the estimates in the United Kingdom and the EEC about the future supplies of cheap oil, nuclear power and natural gas. The EEC strategy based on those estimates is seen to be quite unrealistic. Some major gas fields, such as that at Groningen near Holland, have already passed their peak.
The EEC expected nuclear power to supply 50 per cent. of energy needs by the year 2000. By 1972 it was supplying only 6 per cent. and that proportion has increased little since then. Because of the technical difficulties and dangers associated with the production of nuclear power, it is not likely to increase to a figure anywhere near the target set by the EEC.
In the devolution debate it was said that the oil in Scottish waters could be near exhaustion in a quarter of a century. Therefore coal certainly has a future. Coal is cheaper to produce than oil. In fact The Times said on 25th January 1974:
Oil with the thermal equivalent of that of the coal an average miner produces in a week costs nearly £250 to get. Including the miner's average earnings of £41 a week, it costs the NCB about £83 to produce one miner's average weekly output.
Obviously coal has a great future, but it can be ensured only by most careful planning of coalfields and adequate investment. NEDO's estimate is that if we are to maintain the present output, investment should be doubled. But more than that is needed, and miners and their dependants must be treated quite justly in all respects.
The Bill adjusts the situation of the pension scheme on which a great burden was laid by massive mine closures in the recent past, which caused the number of pensioners to leap in relation to the con-

tributing miners. It is right that the Government should top up the fund.
It is shameful that the Government have not taken this opportunity to redress what is a great scandal in the coal fields, to do justice to all retired miners and their dependants, particularly those who were forced to retire through pneumoconiosis, which has played such havoc with the lives of thousands of miners and their dependants.
I also refer with appreciation to the scheme drawn up by the NCB and the NUM, to which the Government contributed £100 million. There are many anomalies in that scheme, and I refer to some of them in the new clause which was not selected. I shall not go over that ground now or I would risk censure.
I want to reinforce the appeal made on behalf of the dependants of those victims of pneumoconiosis who died before 26th January 1970. In my district—within 20 miles of my home—there are hundreds of women, mainly widows but also some daughters suffering grievously because of the present situation. No one has struggled more gallantly for their husbands in adversity than have these women. I hope that I can make an appeal on their behalf, as other Members have been allowed to do. In some cases the husbands were totally incapacitated by pneumoconiosis for decades before death. The cause of death is stated starkly on the death certificate as pneumoconiosis, yet the widows are dismissed from the mind and conscience of society, if the husband died before 26th January 1970, with a pittance of £300.
Some hon. Members may have seen a television programme early last year in which the central personality was a man who died of pneumoconiosis incurred as far back as 1942. This was a progressive case, and it is one of the horrors of pneumoconiosis that it is progressive. People in the late stages can walk only a few steps with difficulty, and then they become entirely bedridden, kept alive because they have an oxygen tube alongside the bed.
The central character in that television programme had accepted a lump sum of £300. That did not increase, but his disease did. His widow, who had had to go out to work to maintain the home, was no longer able to do that but had to stay at home to nurse him. When


the man died, the day after the film was shown, the widow found that she was not entitled to any money because he had contracted the disease so early and had accepted the lump sum.
That case is typical of many in my constituency. When I appealed to the Government in Committee to do something for such people the Under-Secretary listened with great sympathy, but he wanted us to understand that in the present economic circumstances it would not be possible to extend the scheme to cover them.
I hope that the Government will listen tonight to an appeal made on behalf of many people in many parts of the southern coalfield in Wales, particularly the anthracite coalfield. I hope that their conscience will be touched and they will act in the way which I think their heart dictates.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I did not intend to take part in the debate, because it was said that Third Reading was likely to go through on the nod.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been wanting to embrace the miners in the best possible fashion. I should have liked to see some of them embracing the miners at the time of the 1972 strike. It can be argued that, notwithstanding the generosity of the Labour Government, many improvements for the industry, including the pneumoconiosis scheme, emanated from that struggle. The miners were able to show then for the first time, even before the quadrupling of oil prices, that they had got back a little of the muscle with which they had always been credited. They had been unable to use it for some time because during the Robens era, when stocks were mounting, they did not have the bargaining power to elevate themselves to what many people would regard as their rightful position in respect of wages, conditions and many of the other matters discussed to-night, including those in the Bill.
We welcome the new friends, and hope that they will remain friends for a long time, but my guess is that if the situation gets tough—certainly north of the border, with the North Sea oil that will eventually arrive—there will be politicians with the inane idea that it would be a good thing

to start running down the mining industry again and to use the oil supposedly to benefit the national interest.
The miners' group, of which I am chairman, has discussed the matter at length. I believe that the Government are sympathetic to our view that that should not happen again. The Bill is an indication that they at least recognise the problem. But we cannot discuss the Bill, with the extension of borrowing powers and all the other matters in it, without taking account of the present situation in the economy generally.
One of the most disastrous things which occur when we are in recession in this country—and I suppose it could be argued about any Western capitalist country—is that we are not able to sell coal to the extent that we used to do. Instead of shutting down factories to be reopened 12 or 18 months later when the boom arrives, if there is no planned energy policy it means that certain pits will be shut and it is very difficult to reopen them.
This Bill must be argued and debated in the knowledge that we are going through the most severe capitalist recession we have had since the end of the war, and it has reflected upon the National Coal Board's position financially. Indeed, it is remarkable that the situation in respect of the surplus or deficit has not been greatly different from that which occurred last year and is likely to occur at the end of this financial year.
Quite apart from the extension of borrowing powers, the Government must take account of the need to plan an energy policy which results in using coal to the fullest extent not merely on a short-term basis but for a considerable length of time.
That brings us to the need for secure markets. I hope that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend are taking the necessary steps to secure those markets. We do not want to be placed in the situation whereby we have another 40 million tons of coal on the ground. The National Coal Board yesterday told the National Executive Committee that it was likely to reach 35 million tons on the ground by the end of this year. Somehow or other the economists on the Board seem to take the view that the up-turn in the economy will not come in 1976 or, if it


does, that it will be extremely late. Their figures suggest, on the most optimistic basis, that there is likely to be an increase of 7 million tons in stocking capacity even on present trends. We have to secure markets in our economy and that can be done only by complete cooperation between essentially the gas industry, but, more importantly, the CEGB and the Scottish Electricity Generating Board.
If that is not done, we shall go on that same old merry-go-round that we have been on before, and hon. Members who have been making their points tonight will be running away from the struggles which will then lie ahead. We must avoid that. I hope that my hon. Friend is taking account of the need to change the fuel used in some of the power stations which we were discussing at the joint meeting yesterday. He knows which they are. There are about six under discussion at present, and that will result in an additional 4 million tom of coal during the course of the next 12 months or two years. That would result in less stocking during this very severe recession.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of the remarks I made with regard to the importing of coal, especially in regard to those imports which are replacing our coal in power stations. I take full account that there are imports coming into this country which it would be difficult to replace on the basis that these are types of coal which we currently cannot produce in Scotland, Wales or the rest of the coalfields. But there are some which are replacing indigenous steam coal which could be provided by the British colliers, such as the 40,000 tons per annum contract which is currently going to Didcot. That ought to be stopped as soon as possible. If necessary, some compensation may have to be paid, but I am told that even on that basis it would be a better bargain than continuing current imports of that kind.
I hope, too, that those in the House, there are not many, who were fervent admirers of the Common Market will pay some attention to the fact that the idea that we would export large amounts of coal to the rest of the EEC should be brought to fruition as soon as possible. Frankly, I cannot see it coming about. However, they have a duty to explain why we have not been able to sell coal—

from the largest coal-producing country—to the Common Market population of 250 million, which they repeatedly promised. That is another area of the market that we need to secure if the Bill is to represent a real advance.
I come finally to the question of closures. I think that I have said enough to indicate that if we do not do some of the things I have mentioned tonight in securing a market for our product, the result will be closures both north and south of the border. I am speaking on behalf of the whole of the miners' group. I take account of the political considerations that have weighed heavily in the past. Long before the Scottish National Party was capable of capturing even one seat in Scotland, those considerations weighed heavily. I hope that SNP Members understand that if we do not have this kind of policy, the same events will occur and the result will be closures throughout the British coalfields. We must prevent that from happening at all costs.
That is why I mention particularly the pit in my constituency which is now producing coal very profitably—and much more profitably than any in Scotland. I do not say that disparagingly, because the Scottish miners work in difficult seams and need to be propped up by the Midlands miners and others in the rest of the United Kingdom who are able to produce coal at a profit, such as the Langwith miners.
I know that it is not within the remit of my hon. Friend the Minister to see that development work continues at Langwith within the next fortnight, but he could put pressure on the NCB and indicate that this matter involves not merely one colliery. This is a question that has alerted all the miners in the United Kingdom. They can appreciate that if a colliery that is currently making about £400,000 profit can be closed, it is a danger signal for many more throughout the coalfields. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his best endeavours to indicate to the NCB, in the fortnight's grace that he has, that the Langwith development must continue, in order to allow that pit to carry on for possibly as long as seven or eight years.
If we do some of these things, consistent with the Bill, and if we have a proper energy policy, one of co-ordination


between the various fuels that I have mentioned, matters such as payment for pneumoconiosis and early retirement for miners, and many other things, will follow in train. That is the answer. Most of the things that we have failed to get in the past—although we have had a few benefits recently—will be obtained if we adopt this kind of policy.
The present recession will be a difficult period. It is not for me in a debate on coal to argue about some of the ways in which we may get out of that recession much more quickly. That matter will be debated tomorrow. We are talking now about the coal industry. That industry can escape the serious hazards that the rest of British industry is facing if the proper steps are taken now, notwithstanding the deep recession.
I appeal to my hon. Friends to take that matter on board and see to it that the representations being made by the miners' group, well in advance of any holocaust that might come are dealt with as speedily as possible.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: As usual, I wish to be brief. However, I make a contribution on Third Reading because I believe that this is an important Bill. It is a short Bill, but it is of tremendous importance. It is of especial importance to my constituents, many of whom are members of the mining community.
I am interested in any Bill which means more investment in the coal industry. I take that interest not merely because it means more investment in jobs, but because it means more investment in the production of energy. Coal is a vital source of energy, and despite the new source of energy in North Sea oil, we shall need coal for many years to come. It is important that we ensure that investment in the coal industry continues at a viable level.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: I think that my hon. Friend knows what I am about to say, but at the moment we have 800 years of available viable coal at present production levels. All this stupid talk about oil off the so-called Scottish waters must be set against the fact that it will last for only two or three decades.

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the importance of the coal industry and emphasising that there will be a coal industry long after the last drop of North Sea oil is extracted.

Mr. George Reid: Mr. George Reid (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire) rose—

Mr. Canavan: Although I welcome more investment—

Mr. Reid: Mr. Reid rose—

Mr. Canavan: Let the hon. Gentleman make a speech of his own if he wants to enter the debate.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Reid rose—

Mr. Canavan: Although I welcome more investment—

Mr. Reid: Mr. Reid rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) does not wish to give way, he need not do so.

Mr. Canavan: Although in principle I welcome more investment I should like the Department of Energy to ensure through the NCB that investment takes place on an equitable basis. It is obvious that throughout the British Isles there are coal seams which are easy to work and which require little capital investment and seams which are difficult to work and which require proportionately more capital investment.
For example, the Selby field has seams which are easy to work. I suppose that in general the majority of the Scottish coalfield is composed of seams which are narrow and more difficult to work because of geological faults. I hope that the Minister will ensure through his colleagues in the NCB that appropriate investment goes to Scotland to ensure the continuing and thriving existence of the Scottish coalfield. But it is clear that unless we work coal in an integrated manner throughout Britain, the Scottish coalfield will die.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for pointing that out recently in a reply to a Question, which corroborates a speech which I made in my constituency at Fallin, the home of the last pit that is left in the whole of Stirlingshire. I pointed out in


my speech that if the separatists—namely, the SNP—have their way and establish a separate Scottish coal board, we shall see the decline and possibly the death of the Scottish coalmining industry.

Mr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that what went wrong with the Scottish coalfield was that the capitalists who controlled the Fife Coal Company were given jobs when the NCB took over? Secondly, does he not share my deep suspicion that the coalfields in Ayrshire, and similarly Fallin, are shortly to be shut down? Thirdly, does he not concede that at Airth there are approximately 70 million tons of coking coal, but that there is little chance of its being used, because we do not have an integrated energy policy in Scotland and because there are no iron works at the far end of the line? Fourthly, does he concede that most of the investment within the NCB will go to Selby in Yorkshire? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is right that the chief executive of the NCB in Scotland should have the same—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech if he catches the eye of the Chair. His intervention is too long.

Mr. Canavan: It was interesting to hear a renegade Socialist on the SNP Bench giving an analysis of the faults of Scottish capitalists who ran the Scottish coal industry. Let us not forget and let him not forget that the real argument in Scottish politics and Scottish industry is not Scotland versus England, but work-people versus exploiting capitalists. Fortunately, the coal industry is no longer run by capitalists. At one time the Scottish coal industry was run by capitalists who exploited fellow Scotsmen and worked them to the bone, making them hew coal to produce huge profits for the owners. That day has now passed thanks to a Labour Government. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would extend his analysis of the Scottish coal industry to other Scottish industries and whether the SNP industry spokesman, who happens to be one of the most Right-wing industrial economists in Scotland, would agree with him.
I have tabled Questions on the Airth coalfield in my area because it is impor-

tant that we have a reserve field in which constituents can find work. The Department of Energy's view is that if and when it becomes economic to extract coking coal from Airth coalfield, appropriate investment may be forthcoming.

Mr. Ioan Evans: One of the problems is that when Opposition Members nod their heads in agreement, it is not recorded in Hansard. I think that it should be recorded that when my hon. Friend said that Scottish capitalists exploited workers, three or four SNP Members nodded in agreement.

Mr. Canavan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which shows that even the dumb can nod.
Coal must be worked in an integrated manner. If we were to split up the National Coal Board, as the SNP would like, that would be the surest way of closing pits such as Fallin and making sure that the coal seams of Airth are never opened up.
It is interesting to see SNP Members taking part in a coal debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are straying well outside the area covered by the Third Reading of a Bill. I appeal to hon. Members to conform to the normal practice of the House.

Mr. Canavan: I was just getting round to the Third Reading.
It is interesting to see the SNP taking part in any stage of a coal Bill. On Second Reading they went home to their beds. The SNP has no sense of priorities and the Scottish mining industry certainly comes nowhere near the top of its priorities or policies. Indeed, its policies would be disastrous to the Scottish mining industry.
I also welcome the references to increased investment in people rather than merely to increased extraction of coal. The men who hew that coal are the lifeblood of the industry. They are the most valuable resource in the industry and it is appropriate that they should be given special consideration. I welcome the provision of increased finances for pensions.
Several hon. Members have mentioned pneumoconiosis, and I particularly agreed


with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans).
I should like to refer to the problem of drawing lines in regulations regarding pensions, redundancies, or whatever. Last week I had a case reported to me by a constituent. I shall be sending full details to the Under-Secretary of State later. The Department of Energy is reported to have
agreed that an ex gratia lump sum may be paid to miner workers who were redundant (a) within 30 days of attaining their fifty-fifth birthday; (b) in the period 17th July 1967 to 10th December 1972; and (c) qualified for payment under the Redundancy Payments Act".
This letter from the NCB states that my constituent cannot qualify as he was made redundant prior to 17th July 1967. He missed it by two days. He finished work on 15th July 1967 but the notice of redundancy is dated 17th July. It is most unfortunate that he, along with many others who have given 40 to 50 years' service in the industry, does not qualify for this ex gratia lump sum payment. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and see whether anything can be done to help such cases.
It is all very well being wise in retrospect, but I think that it can be said that some miners' leaders in previous generations thought more about the wages at the end of the week than the long-term benefit of pensions. There are still grave risks of physical injury and disease in coal mining. It is therefore important that miners should have adequate pensions at the end of their working lives. In cases of fatal injury or disease, it is important that widows and dependants should receive compensation.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: I should like to put the record straight. My hon. Friend said that miners' leaders in the past were concerned mainly with wages, quite rightly. However, there was a man called Keir Hardy who, when the people of Merthyr were deciding that he was the best Socialist to represent that constituency against the Welsh nationalists, said that what he wanted for miners was early retirement and compensation for pneumoconiosis and illness.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I cannot emphasise too much the importance of pensions, but nevertheless wages are also very important for the working man.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it is almost hypocritical of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest that miners deserve higher wages because coal is important and mining is demanding, dangerous, and so on. But where were they during the miners' strikes of 1972 and 1974? I do not recall their sticking out for the fundamental principle that miners should get more money. Indeed, I do not recall any Member of the SNP, particularly not the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), going round constituencies and saying, "We support the miners in their strike because they deserve more money." The attitude of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire to the miners was similar to that of his predecessor. Perhaps his fate will be the same.
I welcome the Bill. It will mean more investment and opportunities in an industry essential to our future energy requirements. It must be worked in an integrated manner, not just geographically but as part of an integrated policy which makes use of all our fuel resources. I believe that in this way and with the help of this Bill the mining industry will continue in Scotland, England and Wales long after North Sea oil has become merely a legend.

1.40 a.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I did not take part in the Second Reading or Committee stage of the Bill. I come to it therefore with almost virgin innocence.
I have listened with great interest to the Third Reading debate and I do not think that I should be representing it unfairly if I suggested that it was in part about coal and in part about Scottish politics. I hope that I can draw together these two themes, within the elasticity provided by the substantial borrowing facilities given to the NCB in Clause 1, by asking the Under-Secretary to indicate to what extent the operations of the NCB in Scotland are on a profitable or loss-making basis.
When discussion of the industry proceeds along the lines largely determined by the course of the debate tonight, it is clearly the will of the House that we should know a little more about the financial structure of the Board as between its Scottish operations and the other component parts in the United Kingdom. That is my one, simple, brief request to the Under-Secretary.

1.41 a.m.

Mr. Eadie: It is difficult for a Minister to reply to a coal debate, especially when matters concerning roads, housing and sewerage have been raised. Hon. Members who referred to these subjects know that they are not within the ambit of the Department of Energy.
This has been a wide-ranging debate and, despite the late hour, there are a number of important issues which deserve an answer in order to clarify matters and to educate and inform hon. Members about the role of the industry and the Bill. The House will welcome the fact that the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) stressed the importance of the Bill for miners and their families who depend on the coal industry for their sustenance. The Bill is also important in the interests of the nation. We must do everything possible to ensure that we retain a large mining industry in this country as a defence in order to make sure that we have sufficient indigenous sources of energy.
I therefore listened with interest to what the hon. Member said, because I think that he expressed the feeling of the House. He asked about the Price Commission's report on coal merchants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection announced in a statement today that the Government welcomed the report. She said that the NCB had recently revised its contractual arrangements for the sale of solid fuel. It will be reviewing the working of the arrangements in the spring and will then report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
The hon. Member referred to what he described as leaks in the Press on the subject of oil substitution, and he mentioned coal imports. It is unnecessary to conceal from the House the fact that coal stocks have recently reached high levels. In such circumstances it is only natural

that there should be some concern about imports. They are expected to fall this year from the higher than average levels of last year, levels which resulted from contracts negotiated by the CEGB at a time of energy shortage. The hon. Member spoke of a so-called leak in the Financial Times. There have been a number of suggestions for dealing with imports. This question is of great importance to both the Government and the energy industries, particularly coal and electricity.
A series of joint meetings by my right hon. Friend with the unions and the industry, which will start on 20th February, will provide an opportunity for discussion of these important issues, including coal imports. Such questions of concern to the coal and electricity industries should be discussed jointly before final decisions are taken. The CEGB has already undertaken to consult the NCB about future coal imports.
The hon. Member for New Forest referred to OPEC. He must forgive me for not attempting to widen the scope of the debate to include whether there should be a floor price for oil. No one can predict what will happen in June when the oil price comes up for review by OPEC. I am no prophet, and I cannot forecast what will happen. The last agreement with OPEC was not for a year but for nine months. The issue will come up again in June. I am sorry that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman any more about that matter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), Aberdare (Mr. Evans), West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)—to whom I am grateful for the way he raised the matter—all spoke about pneumoconiosis. We debated pneumoconiosis at length in Committee, and the hon. Member for Caernarvon appreciated the problem that faced the Government. The Committee conceded that the Government had put their money where their mouth was in providing sustenance for pneumoconiotic miners. Such a scheme was never thought of before the Government came to power.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was Secretary of State for Energy, he went to the


Cabinet at a time of great economic stringency, when there was great pressure on the allocation of public resources, and he was able to get £100 million to back up the pneumoconiosis scheme. I have never pretended that the Government would not have liked to provide more than the £100 million. Although the Government provided £100 million, the scheme is not a Government scheme. It was negotiated between the NCB and the NUM.
In Committee I was accused of being over-emotional. I said that the Government, in association with the employers and the union, at the time of the tripartite agreement, wanted to give money to people while they were alive rather than when they were dead. There is no need to describe to me the suffering caused by pneumoconiosis. I spent more than 25 years in the mining industry, nearly all the time at the coalface. Anyone who spends that amount of time in the mining industry is bound to have dust in his lungs. I have seen many of my mining friends suffer terribly from pneumoconiosis. I do not need to be reminded of that suffering.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon accepted the arguments on the scheme which I advanced in Committee. One of the lessons I learnt as a trade union negotiator was first to get the principle of a scheme accepted and then to build on the principle. I have no authority on behalf of the Government to say that tomorrow we shall build on the principle by making provision, for which hon. Members have so eloquently pleaded, for those who have been left out of the scheme. But I say to the hon. Gentleman that I welcome the fact that hon. Members have once again expressed the difficulties of the scheme. As I have said before, I hope that people will listen to what is said and to what hon. Members have described. The principle has been established and in future it can be built upon. But I stress that this is not a Government scheme but one drawn up and negotiated between the NCB and the NUM.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: While I do not wish to deny credit to the Government for the grant of £100 million for this scheme, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it was forced upon the Gov-

ernment by the result of two court cases? As the Government had to make this grant—they might have had to pay out more—will he bring pressure on them to extend the scheme to include the people we have heard about in the debate?

Mr. Eadie: I have tried to respond to the hon. Gentleman's view with the same courtesy as he has extended to me, but I must say to him now that he is less than fair in trying to diminish the contribution that the Government have made, in full compassion, to the people involved. To suggest that the Government were compelled to do so is a travesty of the facts. Hon. Members with legal experience know that the Government could have let the matter drag on through the courts; it would have been a long and laborious battle. When in Committee I made the speech for which I was accused of being emotional, I said that the Government were determined that these men would get some financial help while they were alive rather than when they were dead. The wheels of justice can grind slowly. There was no compulsion on the Government to act as they did. There was a genuine, compassionate appraisal arising out of the tripartite inquiry by the NUM, the NCB and the Government.

Mr. ICinnock: But, acknowledging his experience and compassion and the absence of compulsion on the Government and their compassion, I say flatly to my hon. Friend, as I would expect him to say to me if our positions were reversed, that not enough has been made available and that we shall be coming back for a great deal more for those cases which have not been justly dealt with, despite the compassion, generosity and consideration of the Government.

Mr. Eadie: If my hon. Friend reflects on what he has just said, I am sure that he will realise that his intervention was unnecessary. I have said that the principle of the scheme has been conceded and that people will listen to the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept what I am saying in the spirit in which I am saying it.
I hope that hon. Members will now allow me to answer the rest of the points raised in the debate. Interruptions make a reply much longer.
I sincerely welcome the fact that at last the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has made a speech in a coal debate. I have longed for the day when he would because it is important to have on record the views and opinions of other parties in the House. I only wish the hon. Gentleman had taken part in the Second Reading debate. I wish, too, that he had taken part in the last debate on coal legislation, an occasion when all members of his party were absent.
I said that the SNP had entirely ignored Second Reading, Committee and Report stages. I was told that the SNP Members were too busy doing other things. I say in all sincerity that I hope that they will not be too busy in future to take part in coal debates, because coal is an important part of the Scottish economy and deserves full discussion, argument and debate in the House.
I am aware of some of the things the hon. Gentleman said, for example, about pneumoconiosis. It was rather late in the day for the hon. Gentleman to say them, because we have had very many speeches on the subject in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire put it, it is difficult to listen to the SNP talking about solving this problem when we regularly hear from SNP Members nothing but anti-nationalisation speeches. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely ludicrous, if not hypocritical, for the SNP to suggest that this problem could be solved by going back to Scottish coal owners.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Under-Secretary say where he got the idea that it was the policy of the SNP to pass the Scottish coalfields back to Scottish coal owners? Our policy is for a Scottish coal board—a different thing altogether.

Mr. Eadie: It is very difficult to understand the policy of the SNP. That is why I sincerely appeal to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to take part in energy debates, so that we can discuss these matters with them.
The hon. Gentleman and his friends are stomping Scotland attacking nationalisation, and they have already recruited into their organisation some of the biggest apostles of private enterprise. When the SNP Members talk of their targets, they ought to tell the House how they will maintain them. One of them spoke of

doing so by reducing the consumption of oil in Scotland. The consequence would be to lose current jobs in the oil industry, so that is not a satisfactory answer. The hon. Gentleman's party ought to be clear in its thinking on this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire said, the idea of a Scottish NCB is ridiculous, because the problems of the coal industry in Scotland can be solved only in a British context.
There were references by SNP Members to pits in Scotland being closed very shortly. It is deplorable that hon. Members should make such a statement for political advantage without attempting to substantiate it. To play with people's livelihoods for political advantage is the height of irresponsibility. If SNP Members have evidence that pits are about to close, they should produce that evidence to the House. I deny it flatly and I say that, in the absence of their putting forward that evidence, hon. Gentlemen are telling untruths in the House.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make such an allegation in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that was not a very parliamentary remark.

Mr. Eadie: If SNP Members are to participa1e in energy debates, they must say where they stand in relation to nuclear power. I have listened to what they have had to say on that subject and they have been anything but positive. They will have to make up their minds and say whether they are for or against the development of nuclear power. The whole House will look forward with interest to any comments which they may make on this topic.

Mr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eadie: No, I shall not.
I turn to the capacity of coal burning power stations in Scotland. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is at present sufficient capacity to burn all the power station coal likely to be produced in Scotland. The South of Scotland Electricity Board's consumption of coal and slurry has risen from 5·4 million tons in 1970–71 to an estimated 8·9 million


tons in the current financial year. However, of course, the prospect of a large amount of oil and nuclear generating capacity coming on stream in the next few years when electricity demand will be below previous expectations naturally raises questions about the future level of coal consumption.
The National Coal Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board have referred this question to the Government, and my Department and the Scottish Office are currently examining it. In fact, I had a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office yesterday. This matter is one of those to be pursued in the forum of the coal and electricity discussions that my right hon. Friend has arranged. In their approach to this problem the Government will have in mind the contribution that the Scottish coalfields can make to the long-term energy needs of the country.

Mr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eadie: No, I shall not.
The hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) has discussed Selby before. I know that he has a constituency interest. He knows that many of those issues are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
However, I can say briefly and succinctly that there may be further delays in a planning decision on the Selby project. The Department of the Environment has circulated the interests concerned to establish whether the flooding that took place in the area at the beginning of January, due to the storms and high tide, has any implication for the subsidence problem, which bulked large at the public inquiry. It will inevitably take a few weeks to clarify this issue, but I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is fully aware of the desirability of an early decision consistent with the need for proper consideration of the very important issues involved. I hope that at this late hour the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover rather characteristically described

to the House the reasons why one must have an energy policy and he said that the understanding and agreement among the NUM, the Government and the National Coal Board must be fully implemented. We agreed to a target of 150 million tons a year. My hon. Friend said that it was necessary to secure markets to implement this policy, and I have already described our approach to coal imports. Conversion will be appraised by the Department in conjunction with those concerned. We are seized of his point that pits are not like factories, that once a pit is closed, in all probability it is closed for all time.
The policy that we are implementing is that outlined in the examination of the industry, a policy of new investment. Of course exhausted pits will be closed, but if we pursue a policy of new investment, new sinkings and a resarch for new resources, both production and manpower will be sustained.

Mr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eadie: No, of course I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the debate. It is unfair of him to come in half way through and expect to take part.
We are now looking forward to consolidating the industry's future. This short but important Bill will help to provide the basis for that future in line with the commitments undertaken in the coal industry examination. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill must be seen in the perspective of an overall strategy on which the industry and the Government have agreed.
I said on Second Reading that there were four main planks in our policy: first, coal as the foundation of a British energy policy; second, a refusal to allow short-term difficulties to blow the industry off course; third, a desire to see that the miner is accorded his rightful place in society; fourth, ensuring that the industry starts this new era without the dead weight of financial millstones from the past.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on his appointment as Opposition spokesman on energy. He asked me about the financial position of the Scottish coalfield. That is a very


important question, to which the people of Scotland and Britain are entitled to know the answer. I shall write to him giving details of production and finance in the Scottish coalfield. No doubt he will wish to study them carefully and comment on them later.

Mr. Biffen: I do not wish to prolong the Under-Secretary's peroration, but may I take it that that correspondence will be passed to me with the prospect of its receiving the widest possible publicity?

Mr. Eadie: It certainly will not be private and confidential. The hon. Gentleman will be able to publicise it in whatever way he sees fit.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eadie: No.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me?

Mr. Eadie: No, I shall not give way.
This short Bill is a further stage in implementing the Government's share in the policy that I have described. I thank hon. Members opposite for their constructive remarks and relevant questions during the debate. The Government are grateful to all who have contributed to this discussion.
It is encouraging to see that the coal industry has the support of both sides of the House and that both sides welcome the fact that the industry is beginning again to play a proper role in the country's fuel policy. In the light of that encouragement, I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

POTATOES

2.16 a.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: I feel the responsibility of keeping the House later at this time of the morning, but the subject I want to

introduce is one long delayed and worthy of some debate before now. I am glad of the opportunity to introduce a debate on the supply, marketing and prices of the potato, or how did the humble "spud" achieve stardom? Perhaps, as some others put it, the King Edward rules supreme as the aristocrat of the fruit and vegetable kingdom. How long will it reign? This appears to be the main question.
In recent weeks potato prices have gone sky-high. The price of potatoes is now three or four times what it was this time last year, and there is still no sign of any stability in the market.
Even before the latest escalation of prices, potatoes largely contributed to the 23 per cent. increase in the cost of food last summer.
The quarterly return, July, August, September, from the Ministry of Agriculture showed that the amount spent each week on potatoes doubled from 7·9p to 16·15p, despite a 14 per cent. drop in sales. The overall food increase, including beef and milk along with potatoes, meant that the food bill for a family of four went up by £2·88 a week in that quarter.
I fully support the Government in their efforts to combat inflation, and I express whole-heartedly my appreciation of the restraints accepted by working people in co-operating with the Government's policy. That is why when they are contending with inflation in all areas of their domestic budgeting they have to have the best possible explanation why the potato—once the cheapest purchase on their list—is now in the luxury class. We in this House should ensure that they have all the support they need to help carry the burdens of inflation.
It is accepted that neither Government nor Opposition can do much about the weather. We all rejoice about that. The mind boggles at the thought of debates about long dry, sunny spells in the summer, with a week of rain in between, as long as it is not the time for our constituents' holidays. No one underestimates the difficulties created by the very fine summer.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for a Written Answer to me on 15th January, when he explained that there had been a shortfall of 2¼


million metric tons in the home crop of 1975. My hon. Friend also said that it was not possible to make good the estimated deficiency and that as prices were determined by normal forces of supply and demand, they would remain high over the coming months. He concluded:
I hope that all concerned will recognise that their long-term interests are best served by orderly marketing during the remainder of the season."—[Official Report, 15th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 212.]
In other words, we have potato rationing by the purse: "If you can afford, you can have. If you cannot afford, eat something else."
Since the debate was announced, my hon. Friend has gone into more detail in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on Monday this work. It was considered important enough to place copies in the Whips' Office. I do not grumble about that answer. One of my objects has been to get the Minister to make a lengthy statement. One should have been made a long time ago. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to go into still more detail about our future supplies of potatoes and whether reasonable price levels are gone for ever.
On 31st July last year, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), my hon. Friend said:
With regard to the main crop, this is not normally a matter involving imports, but we are keeping the position closely under review.
In answer to a supplementary question, he said:
The difficulties of last month were caused by factors that were hard to foresee. I have no doubt that in future we shall be better able to regulate supplies and, accordingly, ensure reasonable prices."—[Official Report, 31st July, 1975; Vol. 896, c. 2023.]
In the light of those answers, it is fair to comment that we do not have regular or sufficient supplies, and that prices are extremely unreasonable.
My hon. Friend has said that we were not able to make good the estimated deficiency of 2¼ million metric tons, and that as soon as it was known that the main crop was affected by drought, the Government lifted the normal import ban on main-crop potatoes. Bearing in mind

his answers to Questions on 31st July last year, can he say when the import ban was lifted? Was it soon enough?
It appears from all reports, particularly the reports we hear from Belgium about fines and imprisonment for hoarding, the problems of price-freezing and so on, that the Community countries are restricting their trade in potatoes and we have been unable to rely on them. The question I want to ask is why the United Kingdom has applied to the EEC Commission only last week, for the tariff on the imports of potatoes from non-EEC countries to be temporarily suspended. I am pleased to see that it has now been suspended for three months. What immediate effect will this suspension have on the regular supplies of potatoes at reasonable prices? In short, with or without the constraints of the Community, why have we not secured alternative supplies at reasonable prices for the British housewife?
Apart from the problems of the housewife there are problems for most suppliers, although some are obviously enjoying the situation. Whatever the problems for wholesalers and retailers, I think that they are fed up with the frustration and chaos in the present distribution and retailing of potatoes.
There are claims that farmers who struck lucky in the 1975 season are turning the potato shortage into handsome profits—indeed, in some cases exploiting the situation. Similar claims are being made about middle men, wholesalers and retailers. To be fair, I suppose that they are a cross section of the community and have in their ranks some who take advantage of the situation. As the great majority involved in the trade want a steady supply of potatoes at reasonable prices, I hope that some action can be taken to seek out and deal with undoubted exploitation. Even so, the trade as a whole would rather be done with the frustration, the chaos, the publicity and all the other features of the potato shortage.
Because of spiralling prices and the instability of the market, frustration and chaos abound. It is thought in some quarters that prices will continue to rise and begin to ease off only in August. I am sure that some feel that the best way to deal with the problem is to quieten it down by ignoring it and simply letting


market forces take their own course. If we take that line, and it seems to be the one that is to be taken, how do we begin to get rid of the activities of the silly fringe?
There are reports that potatoes have become valuable bingo prizes. They are offered as an incentive to buy secondhand cars. They are compared in value with jewellery. I heard on the radio this morning that someone had offered his super de luxe speedboat for 7½ tons of potatoes. It seems that suppliers themselves are watching their stocks by night seated on their tractors. It seems that someone has been fined £100 for stealing, presumably by night. No doubt there is much more to follow in this vein. It is a ready-made situation for such events.
It is claimed that any artificial restraint on prices would encourage consumption and lead to a run-down of stocks. One can understand the economics of that. But some limit must be placed on prices if only to stop the nonsense to which I have just referred. But, more important, the pressure on the cost of living for working families must be eased.
We have already been warned by the United Kingdom growers that seed potatoes will cost much more than they have ever cost previously and that potato prices in Britain are bound to remain high. The Community farmers are also claiming that unless their prices remain high, considerably higher than in the past, the danger of future shortages will remain whatever the weather. The European Commission is urging Ministers to extend the common agricultural policy to potatoes. These are some of the problems we have to face in relation to the supply and the price of potatoes.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection recently pointed out in a speech to the NFU that she had told the Council of Agriculture Ministers about the reality of consumer resistance to higher prices. She said that we should see a decline in butter consumption in this country over the next two years as prices moved to full CAP levels. That probably sounds good for margarine manufacturers.
We know that the beef premium, which the Minister of Agriculture is insisting on being retained, keeps beef prices

down and enables more in this country to eat a steak. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection also said that high prices simply reduced consumption, depressed the market, caused a build-up in intervention stocks and solved nothing. Are we to have more, bigger and better mountains? Surely that is not the answer.
I do not claim that the Government are deliberately set on this course at present. But we have to go to the EEC to get permission to import from non-EEC countries. Given the attitude of the growers in the Common Market and that of the Commission, and the need for adjusting to common price levels in the Common Market, we shall eventually get such a situation.
Beef mountains exist only because people do not eat the available beef. Many in this country are priced out of a steak. It we are about to begin to build the largest potato pie in the world to solve our supply problems, many British consumers will have had their chips, too.
I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to some of the points that I have raised, which I am sure are causing concern in the country at large. Any hope that he can give to the British housewife will be well received. I thought that this was a subject that ought to be debated. I am glad of the opportunity to introduce it and, even at this late hour, I want to say how grateful I am for the time of the House.

2.32 a.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) for raising this matter tonight because it gives me the opportunity of describing to the House and the country, the reasons for the current potato supply difficulties and explaining the action that has been taken to alleviate the situation. I know that this matter is of concern to hon. Members and the public generally, and rightly so because the humble potato, as my hon. Friend implies, is an important part of the national diet.
I think that I should start by explaining our general policy on potatoes. The policy of the present Government, as of


successive Administrations since the passing of the Agriculture Act 1947, is that the United Kingdom should be self-sufficient in main-crop potatoes, except in years of unusually low yields. The guarantee and marketing arrangements under the Agriculture Acts are geared to this end. Our climatic conditions prevent us from being self-sufficient in new potatoes and there is a traditional market for imported new potatoes in the late spring as stocks of the old home crop begin to run down and before supplies from the new home crop are available.
Each summer, the Government and the Potato Marketing Board, in consultation with the National Farmers' Unions, determine the target acreage for Great Britain for the next year's crop. In fixing the level of the target we are aiming to secure a planted acreage which on normal yields would produce sufficient supplies to meet our estimated requirements for human consumption and other needs, such as seed, for the coming year and leave a modest surplus of some 200,000 to 300,000 tons.
The Potato Marketing Board, which operates in Great Britain, allocates acreage quotas to registered producers. But it is for the individual producer to decide how many acres he will plant to potatoes. A producer in Great Britain is not obliged to plant his quota allocation. If he does not plant up to his quota he knows that his entitlement is likely to be reduced in the following years. Conversely, if he decides to exceed his main-crop quota he knows that he will be liable for an additional levy to the Board in respect of the excess. The normal levy is reduced on acreage harvested as new potatoes.
For the 1975 crop the Government set a target acreage of 565,000 acres for the United Kingdom. The full acreage was not planted, but some underplanting of the target acreage has been normal over recent years. There were probably a number of reasons for the lower plantings. The 1974 harvest had been exceptionally difficult. The extremely wet autumn prevented lifting and many fields were so waterlogged that machines could not be used. About a fifth of the main crop was still in the ground at the end of November when all should have been lifted. When the potatoes were eventually

lifted many went into store in very wet condition. Also some other crops were perhaps more attractive propositions to some individual growers—namely, less labour intensive and with fewer production problems.
The actual planted acreage was down by 28,000 acres—about 5 per cent.—compared with 1974. This in itself was no great cause for concern since in normal weather conditions improvements in yields from technological factors combined with lower riddle standards would have ensured sufficient supplies to meet our expected needs. We have to go back several decades to find a year which approaches anywhere near the circumstances of this season.
Because of the adverse weather conditions in the autumn and again in the spring, the land was less well prepared than growers would have hoped. The weather continued to be against us for the remainder of the growing season. In fact, it could hardly have been worse for potato growing. If it were not so serious the saga I have to relate would have echoes of the Hoffnung tale of the workman who kept getting clobbered by extraneous objects. Planting conditions may have deterred some people from planting. The cold late spring discouraged early growth and the following prolonged dry spell affected the development of the crop. Yields were low and prices reflected the shortage of supplies.
The difficulties began even before the commencement of our own season as a result of a substantial shortfall in our traditional supplies of imported new potatoes because of poor crops overseas, particularly in Cyprus, and a low carryover into the late spring from the 1974 crop. As soon as the prospects for the 1975 harvest became apparent, the Potato Marketing Board adjusted the normal riddle sizes and in particular relaxed the riddles which normally apply to home produced main crop potatoes from 1st August. The top riddle size of 3½ in. was removed and the minimum riddle size of 1⅝ in. was reduced to 1½ in. Below this size potatoes can still be sold in the shops as "mids", and I am advised that all sound potatoes can now find a market for human consumption. Requirements on diseases and faults have not been relaxed.
Throughout the summer the Government kept the situation under close review. In August we consulted all major interests in the potato industry on the prospects of the 1975 main crop yield. The yield of potatoes then being lifted was still low and as a precautionary measure—even before the full extent of the shortfall was known—the Government lifted the seasonal ban on imports of new potatoes in September and October and, more important, the usual continuous ban on imports of main crop. My hon. Friend asked about the date of the lifting of the ban. Since 1st September last it has been possible to import main-crop potatoes from all countries satisfying our plant health requirements. As the prospects did not improve, we took the only other action open to us—we imposed a ban on the export of eating potatoes from 17th October 1975. This was not an easy decision to take as it meant disrupting the normal patterns of trade.
From what I have said of the events of last summer and autumn, hon. Members will note that the Government and the Potato Marketing Board took action early in the 1975 main-crop marketing season to conserve and supplement home supplies of potatoes for the United Kingdom consumer. But this action could not make good the shortfall in production of one third compared with 1974—an estimated shortfall of 2¼ million tons. European countries also had poor crops, caused by the hot summer, and although we estimate that we have imported about 170,000 tons of main crop so far, mainly from the Netherlands, imports cannot possibly bridge the gap.
Hon. Members will know that the United Kingdom has applied for a temporary suspension of the tariff on imports of new and main-crop potatoes from non-EEC sources. We hope that by our suspending the tariff additional supplies will be attracted into the Community. The suspension of tariff on main-crop imports took effect on 26th January, only a few days ago, and further discussions are taking place on the new potato tariff. There was little point in seeking a suspension of the tariff until this month, since under the tariff arrangements which applied up to 31st December the United

Kingdom had a significant preferential advantage over other member States.
We have also reminded our representatives in countries conforming with our plant health requirements of the supply position here so that importation of any stocks available for export can be facilitated. We have tried to find additional sources of supply. We must recognise, however, that we are faced with a difficult supply situation which will continue until early potatoes are available in quantity. Prices, which are determined by the usual market forces of supply and demand, will remain high over the coming months.
I do not underestimate the difficult position in which processors, fish friers, and all other users find themselves. I also appreciate the motives of those who have called for further Government action. I should like to deal briefly with some of these suggestions.
First, it has been suggested by some people that we should relax our plant health requirements. But these regulations are designed to ensure that we do not get serious potato diseases and pests which would be costly and difficulty to eradicate and would endanger future yields. Relaxation of our health requirements would hazard the long-term future of the industry, and this is a risk that I could not responsibly take for what is essentially a short-term problem.
I have also been pressed to prevent hoarding. Although some farmers sell their crop on to the market as soon as it is lifted, the far greater proportion of main-crop potatoes are put into store for release on to the market in the winter and spring. This is the normal seasonal pattern—indeed, the essential pattern if we are to have supplies for the whole of the season. Precipitous unloading of the remaining stocks on to the market would only increase the problem later on.
I have been asked why the Government will not take steps to stabilise prices. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection commented in her speech last week to the National Farmers' Union, any action taken by the Government or the trade to restrain prices artificially would encourage consumption and lead to a run-down of stocks which need to be marketed in an orderly fashion to cover the


remaining months of the season. As hon. Members know, the food subsidy programme was introduced to help those on low incomes during a period of sharply rising food prices.
The Price Commission has been monitoring potato prices and margins. All the indications are that the level of prices simply reflects the supply position and the Price Code covers wholesalers' and retailers' margins on their overall businesses.
Summing up, let me say that we are well aware of the present difficult situation and appreciate the very real problems of those whose livelihood is directly affected by the current supply shortfall. But we have to face the prospect of high prices continuing until supplies of new-

crop potatoes are available in quantity. In the meantime, it is in everyone's interest that the remaining stocks are made available to the market as consistently and regularly as possible. Over the coming months the exceptional circumstances which we are experiencing currently will be resolved by the new season's crop.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to go into detail on a problem that is of concern to the country. I assure him that we shall do all we can in the months ahead, before the new and main crops, to safeguard our supplies and to watch over consumers' interests.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Three o'clock a.m.